dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

COPY 
U.S. Department of IIonleland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
EAC 06 042 50242 
 MAR 1 4 2008 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
U 
9 ~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability.' 
The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to quali@ for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he "submitted the required supporting documentation that clearly establishes 
[his] eligbility to be classified as an alien of extraordinary ability." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority 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 ths 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. S; 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
1 
 It is noted that the petition was prepared by an "immigration consultant." The record includes no Form G-28, Notice of 
Entry of Appearance by an Attorney or Representative, establishing that this immigration consultant is a licensed 
attorney or an accredited representative authorized to undertake representations on the petitioner's behalf. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 292.1. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 17, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a fashion designer. At the time of filing, the petitioner was employed as a fashion designer at Check 
City. A February 20, 2007 letter from the Human Resources/Payroll Coordinator at 
Secaucus, New Jersey states that the petitioner "has been employed with 
as a designerltechnical designer" for the Dockers and Levi's Division. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzjkation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In a November 15, 2005 letter accompanying the petition, the petitioner's unaccredited representative states: 
[The petitioner] is currently a designer for Check Group, LLC. His clients include Phat Farrn, Puma, 
Ecko, Plugg, Outkast, Akademiks, Apple Bottoms, Vokal and the National Basketball Association 
(NBA). He has also designed fashions for such iconic names as Vivienne Westwood, Ellis Bridals, 
John Charles eveningwear, and Nicole Farhi. These globally recognizable names . . . singled out [the 
petitioner] to design and provide designs for their fashion lines. 
The record includes recommendation letters indicating the petitioner worked as a fashion designer for the 
is there evidence to support the assertion that the aforementioned clients of the Check Group "singled out" the 
petitioner to design and provide designs for their fashion lines rather than seeking the services of his 
employer, who then assigned and oversaw the petitioner's work for the above clients. For example, there are 
no statements originating from the Check Group's clients, such as the NBA or Puma, indicating that it was the 
petitioner's particular services they sought as opposed to those of the Check Group in general. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Nevertheless, the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "membership in associations in the field . . . which require 
outstanding achievements." The preceding companies are not associations with a body of membership, but 
rather businesses who have employed the petitioner or utilized his services. With regard to the petitioner's 
Page 4 
he Check Group and it clients, as an "Assistant Fashion Designer" at 
and his freelance work for Ellis Bridals and John Charles evening wear, we 
cannot conclude that such employment is tantamount to "membership in associations in the field" requiring 
out standing achievement. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that he holds membership in associations in the field requiring 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in his 
field or an allied one. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classlJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distnbution, 
unlike small local community papers.2 
In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
[Tlhe petitioner has provided excerpts from fashion magazines relating to fashion shows, new 
products, and advertisements which purportedly show his designs. The petitioner asserts that this 
constitutes published material in major trade publications or other major media. However, most of 
the excerpts do not associate the petitioner with the particular designs. Further, the petitioner has not 
provided any articles that are actually written about him or his career as a fashion designer. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not address the director's finding that this criterion has not been met. We 
concur with the director's observations. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the 
published material be "about the alien." A magazine photograph of apparel designed by the petitioner is not 
published material about him. The record includes no evidence of published material about the petitioner in 
professional or major trade publications or other form of major media. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 5 
[The petitioner's] outstanding abilities as a fashion designer at Check Group Inc[.] are indispensable 
to maintain its public image of stylistic creativity and artistic originality as we present every year the 
latest creations of our clothing apparel. 
His impressive international background in Haute Couture and sport[s]wear, added to his creativity 
and productivity make him an essential asset to any top American or international company. 
Vivienne Westwood has frequently worked with [the petitioner] during the last years [sic]. We have always 
appreciated his great professionalism, his seriousness and of course his creativity. He is a very reliable 
Chief Executive Officer, fi evening wear, London, England, 
states: 
It is our pleasure to recommend [the petitioner], one of the most talented fashion designers I have had 
the privilege to meet and work with. 
This letter confirms that [the petitioner's] ability provided far beyond what was required in his 
assignment. 
He brought outstanding creativity which speaks to his many years of experience that transcends 
national borders. 
personnel ~ana~er Paris, France, states: "Each of our projects [the petitioner] 
has been involved with has set new standards of creativity and innovation in the fashion industry . . . . I can 
highly recommend him to anyone who is interested in a standard of professionalism, productivity, and 
creativity of the highest order." 
Director, D-Roox Street Wear By MD Diffusion, Paris, France, states that he was "extremely 
satisfied with the quality of [the petitioner's] extraordinary work and intuitive creativity. His very pleasant 
personality ha[s] been appreciated by every fashion team he has worked with." 
"outstanding abilities and leadership as designerltechnical designer are indispensable to maintain and set 
higher standards for the worldwide brand image of Levi'sIDockers." The record, however, includes no 
commentary from corporate executives at Levi Strauss and Company or other documentary evidence to 
support this assertion. As discussed previously, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N at 
158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Calfomia, 14 I&N at 190). Further, we note that the petitioner 
did not begin working for Andrew Marc's Dockers and Levi's Division until October 2, 2006. A petitioner, 
however, must establish eligbility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's design work for Levi 
Strauss and Company product lines in this proceeding. Even if we were to address the petitioner's fashion 
designs for the Levi's and Dockers product lines, there is no evidence that they are contributions of major 
significance in the fashion industry. 
The preceding letters of recommendation discuss the petitioner's talent as a fashion designer, experience, and 
creativity, but they fail to demonstrate that he has made original contributions of major significance in his 
field. The letters include no substantive discussion as to which of the petitioner's specific achievements rise 
to the level of original contributions of major significance in the fashion industry. According to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
While the petitioner is clearly admired by his current and former employers, there is nothing to demonstrate 
that his work has had major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of 
the petitioner's influence on other fashion designers nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 1988). However, CIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation 
are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a musician who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner claims that his work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions and showcases. The 
petitioner references a Levi's display booth at the Magic Show in Las Vegas. The petitioner has also 
provided evidence which indicates he participated in the Xuly Bet Puma line fashion show in Paris, 
France. Finally, the petitioner claims that his works have appeared in countless other exhibitions, 
fashion shows, advertisements, etc. and that the individuals who purchase the items showcase his 
work daily. 
Page 7 
The fact remains that the petitioner is a fashion designer and it is reasonable to assert that displaying 
one's designs at fashion shows is a routine and common practice in the fashion industry. The 
petitioner has not otherwise established that these were his own fashion shows or that he was the 
featured designer at these shows. Further, the record is absent any evidence that the petitioner has 
garnered any national or international acclaim as a result of these shows. 
We concur with the director's observations. There is no evidence establishing the significance and prestige of 
the venues where the petitioner's fashions were on display. Further, it appears that the petitioner displayed his 
work among that of numerous other designers and it has not been shown that participation in these shows was 
limited to top fashion designers of national or international repute. As such, the petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peflormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner refers to his work for Levi's as well as other fashion labels in which he has provided 
designs including Phat Farm, Vivienne Westwood, Ellis Bridals, Outkast Clothing Company, and the 
National Basketball Association. It appears that the petitioner has successfully provided designs for 
these organizations, which would be expected of any similarly employed designer. It is noted that the 
petitioner has failed to distinguish himself from other designers, officers, and key employees in these 
organizations. 
We concur with the director's observations. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the letter from the Human 
Resources and Payroll Coordinator for Andrew & Suzanne Inc. and his documentation relating to the Levi's 
line book demonstrate his critical role for Levi Strauss and Company. As discussed previously, the 
petitioner's work for Andrew & Suzanne Inch Dockers and Levi's Division occurred subsequent to the 
petition's filing date.3 A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45, 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the 
petitioner's role for Levi Strauss and Company in this proceeding. With regard to the clients for which the 
petitioner has performed design work such as Levi Strauss and Company, Phat Farm, Puma, Ecko, Plugg, 
Outkast, Akademiks, Apple Bottoms, Vokal and the National Basketball Association, the record includes no 
letters of support or other evidence originating from senior management at these companies indicating that the 
petitioner performed in a leading or critical role on their behalf. We note that the petitioner was not an 
immediate employee of the preceding organizations and that his work for these clients was only temporary or 
contractual. 
According to the letter from Isabel Lopez, the petitioner commenced employment with Andrew Marc on "October 2, 
2006 as a designedtechnical designer for [the] Dockers and Levi's Division." 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he worked for Check Group, Vivienne Westwood, Ellis Bridals and 
John Charles evening wear, Xuly Bet Group, and MD Diffusion, but the record includes no evidence showing 
that these companies have distinguished reputations. Nor is there evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's 
role differentiated him from the other fashion designers employed by these companies. The petitioner has not 
established that he was responsible for employers' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sig-n$cantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted his Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement for 2005 fiom the Check Group reflecting 
earnings of $61,615.32. On appeal, the petitioner submits a March 1,2007 earnings statement and his 2006 W-2 
and Earnings Summary from Andrew & Suzanne Inc. The petitioner also submits evidence of compensation 
from his freelance work for Johnny's Signature Inc. in October 2006, BBC Apparel Group in June 2006, Phat 
Wholesale in March and April 2006, and Gromwell LLC in 2006. The petitioner earned this compensation 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligbility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45,49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
the petitioner's earnings from 2006 and 2007 in this proceeding. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in 
relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation in 
2005 or any other prior year was significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no indication that the 
petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid fashion designers in the 
United States or any other country. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.