dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-8-R-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 21,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § ll53(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had satisfied only one of the regulatory criteria, of which a Petitioner must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement affirming 
that she meets an additional two criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
(i) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Matter of A-B-R-
(ii) 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). 
' 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itselt~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a fashion designer, primarily of shoes, who has worked for several prestigious 
design companies. The Director found that she had judged the work of others under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), but had not met any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that her styles have been featured in major media, that she has made 
contributions of major significance in the field of fashion design, and that she has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations, pursuant to the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, while we agree with the 
Petitioner that her role for various designers has been critical, the record does not support a finding 
that she meets the plain language requirements of the remaining criteria she has addressed. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
As the Petitioner has not affirmed that she received a major internationally recognized award and the 
record does not contain such an achievement, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Mauer of A-B-R-
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classtfication 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). 
The record contains numerous examples of celebrities appearing in the media wearing styles on 
which the Petitioner worked. In some instances, the designer brand is mentioned. The Petitioner 
also supplied articles that mention the designers for whom she has worked, including favorable 
coverage of wedge sneakers which the Petitioner helped design. None of this media coverage 
mentions the Petitioner by name. The Director concluded that the materials were not coverage of the 
Petitioner or her work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "only the brand's name shows up in the publications in 
magazines," but that the top brands "hire the best designers to design their collections." She notes 
that she submitted sketches of several shoes and some clothing as evidence that she is "the author of 
these designs." She further identifies several letters in the record that attest to her participation on 
designs featured in the media coverage. 
Here, the record does not include any published material that mentions the Petitioner by name. 
Notably, the September 2014 issue of identifies two designers at 
Design Director and Creative Director Another item from February 15, 
2015, singles out a designer at While we do not question that the Petitioner 
participated in the design of shoes and other clothing featured in the media, the plain language of the 
regulation requires that the items be "about" the Petitioner, relating to her work.2 Articles that do 
not mention the Petitioner by name are not "about" her. 
The Petitioner suggests on appeal that this criterion is not relevant to her occupation. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows the submission of comparable evidence where the standards set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation. As noted above, 
the record contains two examples of published materials that mention designers by name. 
Regardless, even if we assumed that this criterion did not readily apply to fashion designers , the 
Petitioner has not explained how items that are not about a designer are comparable to articles that 
are. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work of 
others in the same or an allied .field ofspec~ficationfor which classification is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner documented her review of the portfolios of fashion design students. Specifically, 
professor of accessories design, affirms 
that he invited the Petitioner to "serve as a judge of the work of other young designers" through his 
2 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring published material about the Petitioner's work). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-B-R-
program. He explains that she "gives constructive criticism" during her visits, which she makes 
multiple times per year "to see 
the student body's creative growth." The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion and the Petitioner 's experience critiquing the products from students 
in 
her field supports that finding. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, art1stzc, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o.f major sign(ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Throughout the proceeding, the Petitioner has relied on 
reference letters to satisfy this criterion. The 
Director considered the letters and concluded that they did not demonstrate an influence beyond the 
Petitioner's employers and clients. On appeal, the Petitioner notes that her references characterize 
her designs, including the wedge sneaker, as contributions to the field. 
Several of the letters .focus on the Petitioner's work on a wedge sneaker. design 
director for and affirms that the style "became an 
international phenomenon and created a trend that changed the way sneakers can be worn in a 
fashion-forward way. This shoe has been reinterpreted and reimagined by numerous other high-end 
brands." characterizes the Petitioner as a "critical" and "integral" member of the design 
team. senior designer of shoes, maintains that the 
Petitioner's design for this sneaker "was truly remarkable and created an immense following within 
the high-end shoe design arena, particularly among international celebrities such as " 
director of development for footwear, l verifies that the 
Petitioner "conceptualized, developed and concluded every shoe design in our collection with our 
divisional design leadership" and that the wedge sneaker "went on to be one of our strongest styles 
for many consecutive seasons." 
The record confirms that the sneaker received media coverage. For example, 
described a "shoe frenzy" after the shoe's debut at a fashion show in September 2011, predicting the 
shoes would "blow off shelves." While mentioned high-top in 
an article on that style of sneaker, the piece also mentioned a wedge sneaker by The 
Petitioner did not offer letters from independent brands corroborating the Petitioner's influence on 
their own designs or news articles noting influence on emer~ing sneaker 
styles. Moreover, the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner is recognized by 
independent experts in the field as the primary designer of the shoe. As noted above, the media 
coverage does not mention the Petitioner by name. While explains that the Petitioner 
was the sole member of the design team with the title ' neither she nor the other 
representatives of provides the number of team members who worked on the 
shoe. 
Other letters discuss the Petitioner's work in more general terms. For example, owner 
and creative director, characteri:t;es the Petitioner's designs as "groundbreaking," 
"revolutionary," "trend-setting," and "pioneering," but includes no examples of how the Petitioner's 
styles have influenced brands beyond where she has worked. Merely repeating the language of the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-B-R-
statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. 
v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory affirmations. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.D.C. 1990). 
Regardless of the field, the plain h_mguage of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the 
field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. For the reasons discussed above, while the letters confirm the 
Petitioner's value to her employers, they do not detail how she has influenced the field at a level 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, she has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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). 
The record contains several letters detailing the Petitioner's roles for her various employers. As the 
Petitioner notes on appeal, confirms that, based on her "impressive work" with other 
brands, the Petitioner currently works as the design director for ready to wear and shoes at 
In this role, the Petitioner "has been primarily responsible for launching new and existing shoe and 
ready to wear lines at In addition, as discussed above, 
and all detail the critical nature of the Petitioner's role at 
provides the profits ofthe footwear division in her letter. The record contains 
media coverage of both the wedge sneaker to which the Petitioner contributed for 
and of her styles for 
The above roles are sufficient to meet this criterion. A leading role should be apparent by its 
position in the organizational hierarchy and the role's matching duties. A critical role is evident 
from its overall impact on the organization or establishment. The record in the aggregate verifies 
both the Petitioner's participation in designs for distinguished brands and the significance of these 
styles for her employers. Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the exhibits the Petitioner provided satisfy only two of the regulatory criteria. 
As a result, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
5 
Matter of A-B-R-
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two­
part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-B-R-, ID# 17443 (AAO June 21, 2016) 
6