dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23376211 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 01, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a fashion designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) . Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a I I designer who has recently worked and exhibited her collections in 
Florida. She has submitted evidence of her work both in Venezuela and in the United States. 
The Petitioner intends to continue her collaboration with businesses in the United States and plans to 
open a store in the I I area. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 determined that the Petitioner met two of the five criteria she claimed to have 
satisfied: participation as a judge of others' work in the field of design and display of her work at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. 1 The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she met criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that she meets these additional criteria. 
As more fully discussed below, we agree with the Director's decision. The Petitioner has not met her 
burden of proof to establish eligibility under each criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received prizes or awards that 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field of endeavor.2 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)Q..}..uL_Jhe Petitioner submitted a copy and translation of a certificate for her Mara 
de Oro Award as a Fashion Designer with International Projection," which was issued by the 
Mara de Oro Foundation of Venezuela onl I 2018. The record includes letters from the 
president of the Mara de Oro Foundation of Venezuela discussing the qualifications necessary to 
receive an award and the history of the Mara de Oro Foundation of Venezuela. It also contains several 
online articles regarding the Mara de Oro awards. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director 
requested documentation to demonstrate that the Petitioner's award was recognized beyond the 
awarding entity. The Petitioner's response highlighted three previously offered online submissions: 
two from Panorama and one from El Universal. 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vii). 
2 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, 
but are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards 
or prizes in the field; and the number of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. See 
generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 (Appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 
In his decision, the Director recognized that the Petitioner was the recipient of the Mara de Oro Award; 
however, he concluded that the award is not a nationally or internationally recognized award in her 
field of endeavor. The Director determined that awards of this nature that are recognized nationally 
or internationally "usually receive a certain level of media coverage," and that the record did not 
sufficiently document the Petitioner's receipt of the award in 2018 in either international or national 
media. On appeal, the Petitioner refers to several articles previously submitted and asserts that the 
Director did not address the evidence provided or explain why it was insufficient to show that the 
award is recognized nationally or internationally. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the Mara de Oro 
award is a nationally or internationally recognized award in her field of endeavor. The Petitioner did 
not submit evidence showing that Mara de Oro award winners receive a level of media coverage that 
is commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized award in the arts. The limited 
evidence of the award's media coverage is insufficient to establish the level of national or international 
recognition associated with the award. Rather, several of the submitted articles are brief 
announcements of prior awards ceremonies and do not mention the Petitioner or the 2018 awards 
ceremony. One submission, _____________ in Panorama, mentions the 
Petitioner's receipt of the award; it includes a picture of the Petitioner with her award, with a two­
sentence article stating that she was recognized with the "Mara de Oro prize." However, it does not 
establish the level of national or international recognition associated with the award. Further, the 
online articles and letters from the organization's president do not provide clear or consistent 
information regarding the award categories, the number of annual awards given, the criteria used to 
grant awards, or whether all of the awards are deemed national or international in scope. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner documented her receipt of the Mara de Oro award as al I Fashion 
Designer with International Projection," the supporting evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that 
this is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in her field of endeavor. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not met her burden to establish that she meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the published material must be about the Petitioner and related to her specific 
work in the field for which classification is sought; it must include the title, date, and author of the 
material and any necessary translation; and the publication must qualify as a professional publication, 
major trade publication, or major media publication. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). With the petition, 
the Petitioner submitted online articles from various websites and publications, together with 
viewership or circulation information. In his RFE, the Director stated that the majority of the evidence 
"reflected blurbs about the petitioner's exhibition at the I Hotel or her receipt of the 
Mara de Oro prize, but no articles which told a story about her work." In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner asserted that the articles submitted with the petition meet the plain language of the regulation 
because they "concern [the Petitioner] in connection to her work in the field." 
In his decision, the Director indicated that he reviewed all of the articles submitted and found that 
none of the articles discussing the Petitioner and her work met plain language requirements of the 
4 
regulation. Specifically, he concluded that the published material is not "about" the Petitioner related 
to her specific work in the field for which classification is sought, and that the website visitation and 
ranking data from SimilarWeb.com did not establish that the cited sources qualify as professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that two of the articles submitted meet the lain language of the 
regulation: " written b and ublished on 
I I 2017, in Panorama; and written by and 
published onl I 2018, in Panorama. Specifically, she asserts that these articles were published 
in major media3 and are about her relating to her work in the field of the arts. 
As to the discussion of whether Panorama qualifies as "major media," the Director found that the 
website visitation and ranking data for panorama.com.ve from SimilarWeb.com did not establish that 
it qualifies as major media. Upon review, we agree with the Director's assessment of the evidence. 
Evidence of published material in major media publications about the Petitioner should establish that 
the circulation (online or in print) or viewership is high compared to other statistics and identify the 
intended audience. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 (Appendix). On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that panorama.com.ve is ranked #87 of "all other" news and media sources in 
Venezuela and that the ranking data from SimilarWeb.com serves as comparative and reliable 
evidence supporting its designation as "major media." 
The website statistics from SimilarWeb.com indicate that panorama.com.ve ranks 20,733 globally and 
87 in Venezuela, and that approximately 80% of the website's traffic comes from Venezuela; it also 
shows the average amount of time viewers spend on the website. However, the record does not 
contextualize those statistics, indicate their significance, or elaborate on how that information may 
establish that the website is the type of major media contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The 
submitted materials do not meet the Petitioner's burden to show that panorama.com.ve qualifies as 
major media. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76.4 
As to the discussion of whether the published material is about the Petitioner related to her specific 
work in the field for which classification is sought, we note that none of the submitted articles include 
a substantial discussion of the Petitioner's work in the field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2 (Appendix). While the two articles referenced on appeal mention the Petitioner, neither 
article includes a substantial discussion about her relating to her work as a fashion designer. Instead, 
I is a brief, two-paragraph article with pictures relating to one of 
her collections. The article includes quotes from the Petitioner, but it does not include a 
substantial or material discussion about her relating to her work. Similarly, 
I is a two-sentence article, including a quote from the Petitioner, with a picture relating to her 
acceptance of the Mara de Oro award. The article does not include a substantial or material discussion 
about her relating to her work as a fashion designer. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to demonstrate her eligibility under 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 The Petitioner does not claim that they were published in professional or trade publications. 
4 The article does not indicate that it was posted on panorama.com.ve. 
5 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she has performed in a leading or critical role 
for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner asserts that she is the leading designer and owner ofl I that 
she performed in a leading and critical role for this organization, and that the organization has a 
distinguished reputation. With the petition, she submitted a letter from the vice president of her 
I I company; articles discussing local exhibitions of her designs in Venezuela; letters from 
companies she has collaborated with; a printout from her Instagram account; financial evidence 
relating to her company; and a letter from a photographer who has photographed her designs. In the 
RFE, the Director requested additional evidence to demonstrate tha is is an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner's RFE response highlighted previously 
submitted articles related to her work in Panorama and La Verdad to demonstrate that she has 
performed a leading role for an establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
In his decision, the Director determined that that Petitioner did not establish that herl lbrand 
has a distinguished reputation. The Director found that the articles in Panorama and La Verdad did 
not speak to the distinguished reputation of the Petitioner's brand, __________ the 
Director stated, "in fact, little is known about this company in the record." On appeal, the Petitioner 
again asserts that the article in Panorama discussing her receipt of the Mara de Oro award, and the 
article in La Verdad stating that her business is a "big success," demonstrate that she has performed a 
leading or critical role for an establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that that Petitioner has not established that her ___ 
brand has a distinguished reputation. The record does not include evidence sufficient to allow for an 
evaluation of the Petitioner's brand or company as it compares to others in the industry. Aside from 
the mention of her work in articles, the only business documents of record are a 201 7 cash flow 
statement and a 201 7 report of financial statements from a public accountant described in the report 
as "unaudited" and "unreviewed;" these documents provide a limited view of the reputation of the 
Petitioner's business. While the record includes letters of endorsement from the Petitioner's 
colleagues that speak to her creativity and work ethic, the letters do not provide sufficient information 
to establish thatl I holds a distinct or eminent reputation as a brand in the 
fashion industry. The Petitioner has not met her burden to establish that she has performed in a leading 
or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, 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. 
G 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7