dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-E- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR.8,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion merchandising company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognizeq in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary satisfies any of the 
initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary 
meets more than three criteria based on her awards, published material, or"iginal contributions, 
artistic display, leading or critical role, and commercial successes. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
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, 
(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 benefl.t prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of M-C-E- Corp. 
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 the beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
documentation for the beneficiary, then it must provide sutlicient qualifying evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 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.O. Wash. 2011), a[{'d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter o.fChawathe, 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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence for the beneficiary under at least three criteria, we will 
determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a fashion designer. At the time of tiling, she was working for the Petitioner as a 
design consultant. 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 Beneficiary's eligibility under at least 
three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that 
the Beneficiary meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published material 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the leading or critical role 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the commercial successes criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). 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. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-E- Corp. 
The Petitioner submitted photographs of the Beneficiary's award that she 
received from her alma mater, the "a two year associate degree 
program." On appeal, the Petitioner contends that rector of the 
discussed the award in his letter of support. The record includes a June 2014 
letter from but he did not comment about the school's 
award. While a 2005 article in mentions in passing that five of the "15 new 
designers from the "we re recognized with the ' 
at a fashion event organized by the school, the article does not discuss the 
significance of the award or demonstrate its level of recognition. Lastly , the Petitioner provided an 
online profile of a fashion designer, which stated: "Beginning his journey at 
in the Dominican Republic, was recognized with the 
awards, and was awarded a full scholarship to study at m 
As the aforementioned documentation is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
fashion design , the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion . 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field fiJI' ·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 evidence for this criterion , the Petitioner provided a 2005 article in entitled 
While the Beneficiary's blouse 
design is identified in a caption under one of 15 accompanying photographs , the article is about a 
school fashion show and not the Beneficiary. The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires 
"published material about the alien." Articles that are not about the Beneficiary do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See. e.g.~ Negro-Plump e v. Okin, 2:07-CV -00820 at* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). A webpage from 
list's circulation and readership as 80,000 copies, but the record does 
not include documentary evidence showing that the number elevates the magazine to a form of 
major media relative to other news and fashion sources. 
The Petitioner also submitted two 2005 at1icles in entitled ' ' and 
At the conclusion of the articles, the 
Beneficiary is listed in a group of more than a dozen students from the 
The articles , however, are about the school's upcoming show rather than the Beneficiary. 
Furthermore, the record does not contain evidence showing that is a form of major media. 
As mentioned in the discussion of the awards criterion , the Petitioner provided a 2005 article 
(entitled · 1 m a supplement of 
discussing a fashion event featuring students from the The 
article, however , is not about the Beneficiary and only mentions her in passing. A webpage from 
list's circulation and readership as 70,000 copies, but the Petitioner has 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-C-E- Corp. 
not established that the number elevates the publication to a form of major media relative to other 
news sources. Furthermore, the record does not include information about or its status as 
a form of major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a 2005 article in entitled ' 
but the author is not identified and the Beneficiary is not discussed in the article . 
While Petitioner contends in an accompanying English language translation that the article includes 
an [the Beneficiary]," the article is not about her. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from website, the 
screenshot did not include information to demonstrate that the magazine qualifies as a form of major 
media. Finally, the record includes an 2012 article about the Beneficiary in the blog 
but the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that the blog is a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly , arttslzc. athletic, or business­
related contributions o.fmajor sign(/icance 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' design. The Director determined that the evidence did not show that 
the Beneficiary's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the fashion 
industry. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision did not properly consider the 
documentation it offered in response to the request for evidence. The Petitioner's response included 
a letter from design director of 1 stating: 
[The Beneficiary's] contributions have become classics for our company, such as the 
that has been featured in many leading fashion department stores, 
among them who continues to sell the style today under the 
brand, and has every season since it's [sic] inception for 2011 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a letter from owner of the 
children's clothing line, indicating that she and the Beneficiary worked "on the 
label for stated that the Beneficiary's 
"has become a classic for Designed for 
2011, it has also been done for for the label consistently 
1 The Petitioner also submitted a company profile for the Beneficiary 's previous employer , describing · the 
company as "a diversified international manufacturer and wholesale marketer and retailer " of fine apparel brands. The 
Beneficiary worked as a designer at ·'from November 2009 to December 20 13." 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter~~ M-C-E- Corp. 
every season since and is still selling today .... " She further noted that ' and and 
other stores have also bought large quantities of this style" and that it "has marked the way people 
dress in our culture." The Petitioner also provided two screenshots from w·ebsite listing 
prices for the ' and ' 
The company profile, retail apparel website screenshots , and statements from the 
Beneficiary's two former coworkers at are not sufficient to demonstrate that she was the first 
designer to originate the style and that her design rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance in the fashion industry. For example, the record does not include corroborating 
evidence from and or other major retailers identifying the Beneficiary as 
the originator of design or distinguisping her work froni. other n1arketable retail fashion 
styles. Although and praise the Beneficiary's work, their letters of support are 
insufficient to show that her designs have widely affected the industry beyond retail 
partnerships or have otherwise risen to the level of artistic or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation requires that the Beneficiary's original 
contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than only to her employer's retail clients. 
In this instance, the uncorroborated statements from the Beneficiary's colleagues are not sufficient to 
demonstrate her eligibility. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter o(Caron !nt'l. Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
. opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not 
required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable "). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the beneficiary's 
eligibility. Jd See also Matter of V-K-, 24 f&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BJA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "f~ct"). Without additional, specific 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary's design work has been unusually influential, has 
substantially impacted the fashion industry, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence qf the di.splay ql the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner provided published atiicles stating that the Beneficiary exhibited her \vork at the 
fashion shmv. In addition, 
the Petitioner offered photographs and letters of support indicating that the Beneficiary's 
fashion designs appeared in a window display of m 
The record therefore establishes that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter o.fM-C-E- Corp. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner contends that the Beneticiary has performed in a leading or critical 
role for the Petitioner, and the fashion line. The record, hm:vever, 
does not indicate that the Petitioner has worked for or developed any of its fashion 
lines. For example, the letter from owner of the children's clothing 
line, does not state that the Beneficiary has worked for her company. Furthermore, the Beneficiary's 
resume does not list under her job experience. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for and the record does 
not include evidence 
establishing that the company has a distinguished reputation. 
chief financial officer for the Petitioner and stated that the 
Beneficiary's role as creative director for ' was critical to the organization's 
success in the Dominican Republic and the [The Beneficiary] provides 
the company with effective marketing material and chooses the clothing, jewelry and fragrance to 
accompany the marketing material." In addition, administrative vice president of 
discussed the Beneficiary's work for the company as a creative consultant and 
creative director. contended that the Beneficiary "has proved critical to our company's 
success" and that "[m]any of the original products that [the Beneficiary] has designed for our 
company have, in turn, become our number one sellers." While the aforementioned letters 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's role was critical, the record does not show that the company has a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner provided its company profile, but USCIS need not rely on 
self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO, qj!'d 317 Fed. Appx. 680 
(C.A.9) (concluding that USCIS did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). Without further suppmting evidence, we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner has a distinguished reputation in the fashion industry. 
former vice president of design for the brand at indicated 
that the Beneficiary worked for that company as a designer for its brand product line. 
explained that the Beneficiary's duties included finding vintage inspiration pieces for 
designs, working with vendors to duplicate vintage buttons and other trim accessories, and 
overseeing various aspects of production. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself. 
In this instance, the Beneficiary served as a designer for one of multiple product lines. 
letter, however, does not indicate whether the Beneficiary served in a leading role 
for the organization or where her position fit in the overall hierarchy of Based on the 
lack of details contained letter, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary 
performed in a leading role for the company. 
Furthermore, a critical role is one in which a beneficiary was responsible for the success or standing 
of the organization or establishment. Although stated that the Beneficiary "was an 
is the Petitioner's parent company in the Dominican Republic. 
(b)(6)
Maller C?[l\4-C-E-Corp. 
essential member of our product development team" and brief1y discussed her duties, she did not 
show how the Beneficiary's accomplishments impacted standing in the field. For 
instance, the Petitioner did not provide evidence reflecting that the company garnered attention 
based on the Beneficiary's work for the brand product line. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established that Beneficiary performed in a critical role for 
With respect to reputation , the Petitioner provided general infom1ation about the 
company from a marketing solutions provider. The information included details about the 
company's export sourcing, distribution, and retailing business entities . . While the business details 
reflect that is a large multinational corporation, the evidence offered is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the company has a distinguished reputation in the fashion industry. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's role for indicated that the Beneficiary "quickly 
became an intrinsic part of the team" at and that many of her "ideas were critical to our 
success." Furthermore , pointed to the Petitioner's work on apparel for as well as 
"in other lines such as and and .... " The 
Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where the 
Beneficiary's role fit within the overall hierarchy of While the Beneficiary worked on various 
clothing lines for the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that 
her duties and responsibilities were leading or critical for the company as a whole. The submitted 
documentation does not differentiate the Beneficiary from the company's executives and senior 
designers so as to demonstrate her leading role, and does not establish that her work on the design team 
contributed to !he company in a way that was of substantial importance to its success or standing in 
the industry. · Furthermore, although the Petitioner provided company profile from .its 
website, this self-promotional material is not sufficient to establish that has a distinguished 
reputation. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating that the Beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofcommercial successes in the pe!forming arts. as shovvn by box qffice 
receipts or record, cassette, compacl disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner acknowledges that the Beneficiary 's field is not "in the performing arts" as required 
by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), but contends that "the 
commercial success of her designs for numerous national clothing lines" meets this criterion as 
comparable evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of 
"comparable evidence " if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation." The Petitioner submitted cut ticket requests showing manufacturing of her clothing and 
screenshots of her fashion designs available on the websites of and 
Here , the record does not establish that the cut ticket requests for the Beneficiary's designs and 
screenshots from vanous retail websites are comparable to the regulation at 
.., 
Matter qf M-C-E- Corp. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) that requires evidence of commercial successes as shown by "receipts" or 
"sales." Although the Beneficiary's designs were manufactured and offered by multiple retailers, 
the Petitioner did not offer sales figures for her apparel designs or other documentary evidence of 
their commercial success relative to other retail fashions. The Petitioner has not shown the evidence 
it claims as comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) is of the same caliber as that 
required by the regulation. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets 
this regulatory criterion through the submission of comparable evidence. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the evidence provided satisfies only one 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: (1) 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.3d at 1119-20. As the 
Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the Beneficiary has not satisfied 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 for this 
classification. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record of proceedings reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS 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 Data Consulting. Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over a USC IS service center, the office 
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 Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
8 
Matter of M-C-E- Corp. 
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)( 1 )(A) of the 
Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-C-E- Corp., ID# 254439 (AAO Mar. 8, 2017) 
9