dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw-tsd 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
552 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Datebop O 1 ZOo(i 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an AIien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203 (b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 153(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (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. ij 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intmational acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
ij 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. ij204.5(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. 
This petition, filed on April 4,2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
fashion designer. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. According to 
the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner has been residing in the United States since September 2001. Given 
the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 
three years), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that 
time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation as a fashion designer in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 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, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Glory" allegedly 
issued by the Foreign Economy and Trade Committee, People's Republic of China, stating: "me petitioner] has 
designed fashions with novelty and various styles, he has made great contribution to the exportation of apparel. 
Afkr approval from State Council, he is awarded the title of Talented Person for Development in the year 1998." 
There is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding this award or evidence showing that it 
commands a substantial level of recognition. Further, the record includes no evidence that would demonstrate 
the number of recipients, the geographic area from which the individuals eligible for consideration for this 
award were drawn from, the criteria for granting the award, the level of expertise of those considered, and the 
number of individuals eligible to compete. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires 
extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner 
must provide adequate evidence showing that the awards presented under this criterion enjoy significant 
national or international stature. In this case, there is no supporting documentation from the awarding entity 
or print media to establish that the petitioner's award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has received any prizes 
or awards in recent years. The absence of such evidence indicates that the petitioner has not sustained 
whatever acclaim he may have earned while in China. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other m~jor 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field fop which classi$cation 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 hs 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 qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that 
most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.' 
1 
 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 4 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an article entitled "Aesthetic Consciousness Lead to Nicety of Work" allegedly 
published in the August 1,2005 issue of Journal of Life. This article was published subsequent to the petition's 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2@)(12); see 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Cornm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this article in 
this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that Journal of Life qualifies as major media. The 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciftcation for which clmsiftcation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. 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. 8 204.5@)(2). 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Employment" 
allegedly issued by the "Jiangsu Provincial Committee of Professional Titles Appraisal" stating that he "was 
employed as appraiser of Leading Group for Advanced Titles Appraisal for Apparel Production Enterprises 
for the year 2000 in Jiangsu Province." This document includes no address, phone number, or any other 
information through which this committee may be contacted. Further, the plain wording of this criterion 
requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." The record, however, 
includes no evidence of the petitioner's activities as an appraiser for this organization. For example, the 
record lacks information regarding the specific nature of his duties in this capacity, the names of the 
individuals he evaluated, and their level of expertise. Further, we do not find that performing appraisals at the 
provincial level demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner's activities involved evaluating experienced professionals at the national or international level, we 
cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, inprofersional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the text for an article that he claims to have published in Anthology of 
Apparel Aesthetics (2000). The record, however, includes no evidence of his published article as it appeared 
in this publication. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofficci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Cra3 of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Nor is there evidence 
showing that Anthology of Apparel Aesthetics qualifies as major media. Further, the record includes no 
evidence of the field's reaction to the petitioner's article, nor any indication that it is widely viewed as 
significantly influential. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
, . Page 5 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJZeEd at artistic ahibitiom or showcases. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a January 22,2006 letter of support fro-who states that she 
has worked in the "apparel industry for decades." - letter, however, does not adequately detail 
her om work experience and qualifications in the fashion industry. She states: "When I was in China, [the 
petitioner] impressed me deeply in Guangzhou Foreign Trade Fair, because he is a talented and young self-made 
apparel designer." The record, however, includes no contemporaneous evidence showing that the petitioner 
displayed his work at the Guangzhou Foreign Trade Fair, nor is there evidence establishing the significance of 
this venue. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Somi, 22 I&N at 158, 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N at 190). Although the Wtioner claims to be a fashion designer, the 
record includes no evidence showing that his work has been displayed at national or international fashion shows. 
The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a February 15, 1997 "Employment 
Agreement" allegedly issued by the "Apparel Factory of Jin Yun County" stating: "me petitioner] is employed 
as advisor of apparel design for this factory from March 1, 1997. During his tenure of office . . . his remuneration 
is U.S. $10,000 per month." This employment agreement, however, includes no address, phone number, or any 
other information through which an official of this factory may be contacted. Nor is there supporting financial 
documentation (such as payroll records or income tax forms) showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any 
given period of time. Further, the plain wording of this 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 was significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner 
earns a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid fashion designers in the United States or 
China. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on January 27, 2006. The appellate submission was accompanied by 
supporting evidence (which has been addressed in this decision). On the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal to 
the AAO, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
As of this date, more than nine months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
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 the 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. 
Page 6 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. V. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 l), afld. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.