dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1 2 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b) (l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
r6��:;trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a fashion producer, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A), which makes visas available to individuals 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 determined that the petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for 
the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three 
of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement contesting the director's decision. The petitioner asserts 
that she meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), and (ix). 
I. LAW 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60 898-99 (Nov. 29, 19 91) . 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. Id.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitiOner can 
demonstrate the her sustained acclaim and the recognition of the her achievements in the field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(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 determinatio n). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 13 39 (W.D. Wash. 201 1) (affirming USeiS' proper application of Kazarian), ajf'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h eir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USers appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that users 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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of this criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence 
must rise to the level of original artistic contributions "of major significance in the field." The 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2n d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing her work in the fashion production 
field. The director found that the submitted evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the 
petitioner states: 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts that she meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Although the submitted evidence (letters) are [sic] from experts in the field, clearly evincing 
my extraordinary ability relating to this criterion, the Service imposes its opinion 
disregarding these experts. This is unreasonable and arbitrary. Weight should be given to 
information provided by these experts, and not be disregarded by an adjudicator who imposes 
his own opinion. 
We note that the director's decision specifically considered statements from references such as 
The petitioner does not explain how the director's 
analysis of the statements from each of their letters was erroneous, unreasonable, or arbitrary. 
Furthermore, the petitioner does not point to any other reference letters that demonstrate her 
eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
a fashion producer based in New York and Paris, offers an advisory opinion as a peer 
of the petitioner. asserts that the petitioner's work includes "major creative 
contributions on behalf of such leading companies as 
" and that her work "benefits trend-setting publications on the order of 
and the French, Russian, and Japanese editions of 
" but does not identify her specific contributions or explain how they were both original and 
of major significance in the fashion production field. In addition, although : mentions 
that the petitioner has worked with "high profile celebrities" and "renowned photographers" and has 
interviewed well-known fashion designers, he does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has affected the field at a level indicative of original contributions of major 
significance. 
, Chief Executive Officer, New York, states: 
[The petitioner] produces advertising shoots that define the public faces of influential labels 
like and her editorials appear in 
and numerous others. [The petitioner] also 
continues to oversee key aspects of such major events as and 
Europe's largest AIDS researcher fundraiser, the . As a versatile 
artist in the fashion community, [the petitioner] receives frequent invitations to contribute her 
expert opinion to publications, including the weekly art and 
fashion supplement to the major Austrian newspaper 
mentions that the petitioner has produced advertising shoots, that her editorials 
appear in fashion magazines, that she has overseen fashion events, and that she has contributed her 
opinion to fashion publications, but does not specify how the petitioner's original work has 
influenced the field as a whole or otherwise equates to artistic contributions of major signific ance in 
the field. 
, an editorial and fashion photographer from New York, states: 
Over the next three years, I will be relying on to handle the photo 
production for my leading projects. I look forward to utilizing the skills of (the 
petitioner] to provide production services in my work for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
_ 
I will require 
the services of the extraordinary [petitioner] for three to four shoots per month during this 
time, with each shoot lasting from one to five days plus one week of preparation. 
comments about future projects for which he expects to utilize the petitioner's services, 
but does not provide examples of how the petitioner's original work is already of major significance 
in the field. 
Similarly, , a fashion stylist and advisor from New York, states: "At a rate of two to 
three times per month over the next three years, I will require the services of and, in particular, 
its superb employee [the petitioner]. is critical to my continued success, and I therefore am 
eager to begin our collaborations." , a set designer for various fashion labels and 
publications, states: "One of the key elements in choosing over other firms is that it will serve 
as the employer of the exceptionally gifted [petitioner], with whom I hope to work on a regular basis 
over the next three years. I will require [the petition er's] expertise for five to seven projects per 
month ... . " While he petitioner's references above indicate that they will utilize the her services 
for future projects, they do not provide any information regarding the significance of her previous 
artistic contributions in the field of fashion production. 
an agent with 
working in the fashion industry, states: 
a firm in New York that represents indivi duals 
[The petitioner's] leading role in producing events, photo shoots, and set designs for major 
clients like proves that she is truly 
operating at the top of her field. 
[The petitioner] is an expert in bringing together the multifaceted elements necessary for a 
successful production. The level of talent with whom she collaborates sets her even further 
apart from others in her field. Regularly partnering with photography legends like 
[the etitioner] produces shoots that have starred 
and numerous other elite celebrities. 
Given her experience and widespread reputation for excellence, it should come as no surprise 
that magazines like invite [the petitioner] to interview other 
leading fashion professionals, such as stylist and designer 
for their many readers. 
mentions that the petitioner has produced events, photo shoots, and set designs for various 
clients; partnered with renowned photographers; coordinated photo shoots involving various 
celebrities; and interviewed fashion professionals for but does not to 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has affected practices in the fashion industry, 
has influenced the work of other fashion producers, or otherwise constitutes original artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Editor-in-Chief, 
.__ _____ __, 
states: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
With I have regularly enlisted the skills of fashion producer [the petitioner], who has 
worked on several crucial shoots for our publication, including editorials with and 
. In the course of working together, I have watched her combine original 
artistry with a deep understanding of the fashion industry to positively influence both the 
experience of the shoot and the final product. The shoots she oversees are always complete 
successes, and we are grateful for all she has done for our publication. 
describes the petitioner's work producing photo shoots for but does not 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work has influenced the way photo shoots 
are conducted by others throughout the fashion industry or was otherwise indicative of artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited 
to the clients for which she has provided fashion production services. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
a photography agent for a management and creative content agency in New 
York, states that she has collaborated with the petitioner "on many shoots for high level publications 
such as " further states: 
Diligent, scrutmtzmg, and inspired, [the petitioner] was vital to the success of these 
productions, and as a result, she has become one of my most invaluable colleagues. The 
artists I represent could not agree more. 
Leading photographers, among them , rely on 
[the petitioner's] expertise and stylistic instincts for their prestigious shoots, as do the 
celebrities they photograph, who include 
Our industry depends upon the exemplary work performed by people like [the 
petitioner], an individual who goes above and beyond to bring together the talent, visuals, 
concepts, and technical elements to produce top tier advertisements, editorials, and events. 
comments on the petitioner's talent and expertise as a fashion producer, but does not 
provide specific examples of how the petitione r's original work rises to the level of artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field of fashion production. 
"show at 
a fashion designer in New York, states that she hired the petitioner to produce a 
" continues: 
[The petitioner] is an amazing woman, blessed with absolutely every skill a Public Relations 
professional could need: a truly directional sense of market positioning, a flair for events that 
capture the imagination, and an impeccable sense of timing in everything she does. 
* * * 
Over the course of her career, [the petitioner] has established herself as one of the premier 
marketing consultants in fashion. As a public representative, and as a producer of events and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
photography that create a brand in the mind of the public, she is absolutely at the top of her 
profession. In addition, she has excelled as a Creative Director for top advertising firms in 
the networks, and as an Editor for branded publications 
of (among many others). 
mentions the petitioner's public relations skills, her production of a show at 
and her talent as a creative director and editor. There is no documentary 
evidence showing, however, the extent of the petitioner's influence on fashion production practices 
in the industry or indicating that the field has specifically changed as a result of her original work so 
as to demonstrate the major significance of her contributions. 
owner and founder of 
talent in fashion and beauty campaigns, states: 
an agency that represents young photographic 
I have connections that have allowed me to serve those I represent all the better. This is true 
of [the petitioner], as well, who spent almost a decade working for top advertising agencies 
in Vienna, including offices of the 
_ . _ 
She, too, 
has turned this experience into an advantage for her clients - top designers like 
Of course, [the petitioner] has also served as an Editor with fashion and lifestyle magazines 
here in Germany, including my own magazine. Publications like 
all have benefited by her deft sense of fashion trends and her gift for creating beautiful 
editorial campaigns. She helped put together back in 2006, and so I have 
witnessed firsthand her professional competence and her gift for compelling artistry. 
Today [the petitioner] is redefining the role of publicist, serving not only as a public relations 
representative for her designers, but also as a sort of in-house Creative Director for them. In 
this, she is making significant contributions to the success of the independent spirit and 
making original and important contributions to the nature of her profession. 
comments about the petitioner's job experience with three advertising agencies, her 
work for various designers, her service as an editor for fashion and lifestyle magazines, and her roles 
as a publicist, public relations representative, and creative director, but does not provide specific 
examples of the petitioner's work that have influenced the field in a major way or otherwise equate 
to original contributions of major significance in the field of fashion production. In addition, 
asserts that the petitioner is "making original and important contributions to the nature of 
her profession." USCIS, however, need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. 
Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 
(upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in 
the field). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
, a fashion designer, states that the petitioner produces and promotes his "fashion shows 
and exclusive, off season events." :continues: 
I must say that [the petitioner] has done a phenomenal job. She, as much as anyone, has 
helped us to express a cohesive vision in everything we do before the public. As importantly, 
she wields considerable influence with the trend-setters and jet-setters, and any event she 
curates is a coveted invitation. 
In addition to her enviable connections, [the petitioner] is just a brilliant individual: As one 
might expect given her career of service to major advertising agencies like 
, she has a unique understanding of media and media people (she was an editor 
for several European fashion and lifestyle publications). As such, she is a perfect 
spokeswoman for a designer who wants to preserve a measure of individuality. As I have 
said, however, media relations are not her exclusive province. Quite simply, she can do it all. 
In sum, [the petitioner] is one of few individuals in this industry whom I would call 
"extraordinary." Based on her creative gifts, her professionalism and, most of all, based on 
her success in promoting my collections, I am glad to extend myself in wholehearted support 
of her visa petition. 
mentions the petitioner's effectiveness as a producer and promoter of fashion shows, her 
personal qualities, media relations experience, creativity, and professionalism, but does not identify 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work has influenced the field or otherwise constitutes 
original contributions of major significance in the fashion production field. Vague, solicited letters 
from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h 
Cir. 2009). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that conclusion was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 11 22. It is not enough to be a talented fashion producer and to 
have others attest to that talent. An individual must have demonstrably impacted her field in order to 
meet this regulatory criterion. 
, a freelance stylist, states: 
[The petitioner's] high standards of art, her sense of fashion, and her respect for the talent 
that she assembles on set has made her one of the most sought-after fashion producers in the 
world. She is a designer's best ally and a top publicist in the business. That said, she is far 
more than just a PR [Public Relations] representative, as she generally accepts creative 
control of her clients' runway shows and promotional photography. She is curator, advocate, 
surrogate and creative partner for top designers like 
and more. 
* * * 
It takes both artistic instincts and a flair for organization in order to produce top-quality 
photographic campaigns. [The petitioner] does this work on behalf of an elite clientele of 
designers. She shoulders all the worry, scouting the ideal partners for a shoot, securing their 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
availability and making sure the production meets strict deadlines and that it expresses the 
artistic goals of the collection. Notably, even the most controlling designer's expectations 
never exceed her own, as she is a discerning and demanding critic. 
comments about the petitioner's talents and organizational skills as a fashion producer, 
but does not explain how the petitioner's campaigns and productions have affected the field as a 
whole or otherwise constitute original artistic contributions of "major significance" in the field of 
fashion production. 
, a fashion designer who launched the collection, states: 
[The petitioner] has designed any number of events for us, and she has generated a great deal 
of press interest surrounding the launch of In doing so, she has ensured that our 
message is accessible, even as it conveys our line's unique sensibility. 
[The petitioner] has been an elite public representative for years now, and for some of the 
most inventive designers in the world. On their behalf, she has distinguished herself as one of 
the most. effective publicists in the industry and as one of its most creative. Her flair for 
marketing is by now internationally known, as is her gift for creating signature events. 
Perhaps less discussed, however, is the extent to which we, as designers, rely on her creative 
input in developing our collections. Presentation is everything in this business, and it is 
therefore vital to have someone like [the petitioner] involved every step of the way. The 
bottom line counts, and in [the petitioner] we find a businesswoman thinking like an artist, 
and a public advocate who never loses touch with her artistic curiosity. 
states that the petitioner worked to generate interest surrounding the launch of her 
company's collection and that the petitioner "has distinguished herself as one of the most 
effective publicists in the industry," but does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's 
work as a fashion producer has influenced the work of others in the industry, or has otherwise impacted 
the field at a level indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance. Again, the plain 
language of this criterion requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the 
field" rather than limited to projects for her clients. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp . 3d at 134-35. 
a fashion designer, states: 
[The petitioner] has long served as an agent with _ one of the truly 
innovative PR firms serving the fashion industry. I am a client, and I have been consistently 
impressed with her creativity, her foresight and her professionalism. She works with style in 
service to strategy, and she commands the trust of opinion makers on either side of the 
Atlantic. As such, she is the ideal representative for a European designer looking to launch a 
collection in the United States or, alternately, for Americans who want to do business in the 
EU [European Union]. 
comments on the petitioner's creativity, foresight, professionalism, working style, and 
trustworthiness, but does not explain how the petitioner's work has affected the industry at a level 
commensurate with artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
, a makeup artist, states: 
[The petitioner] is one of those people who know [ s] how to nurture good ideas, and she has a 
seemingly endless supply of her own. With a background in advertising, she approaches 
fashion and fashion production with a critical eye and an astute sense of audience. As such, 
she is more than just a publicist; she is a valued partner and an important strategist for her 
designers, helping them to make choices that build healthy brands. 
She is an amazing ally for designers like _ 
and many others. They trust her with their reputation, and, as often, with 
oversight of the editorial and promotional shoots that are the lifeblood of fashion. It is in this 
context that I first became acquainted with her, and so I know the difference she can make, 
both in terms of the quality of the pictures and the attitude of everyone involved. People want 
to work with and for her, and so she gets the very best we have to offer. 
comments on the petitioner's ability to nurture and provide good ideas, her background in 
advertising, her importance as a brand strategist, and her work with various designers. There is no 
documentary evidence showing, however, that the petitioner's work has impacted the fashion 
production field in a major way, or that her work has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
a lingerie designer, states: 
I am writing to ... recommend the extraordinary ability of [the petitioner], who produced my 
most recent show during . She is an amazing woman and a valued collaborator 
for many of my influential colleagues. 
[The petitioner] has become one of the top publicists in the world, but obviously she is not 
your everyday PR flak. She serves, rather, as a sounding board and consultant for her clients, 
participating in all aspects of marketing. Personally, I trust her as a surrogate, someone who 
will express my design aesthetic with the same passion I would, and I am not alone in this: 
she works as well and as centrally with and with celebrity 
designer 
I should say that [the petitioner] is unique in one other respect: she can speak to influential 
editors in their own language. 
states that the petitioner produced her line's show and mentions the 
petitioner's skills as a top publicist, marketing consultant, and fashion editor, but does not explain 
how the petitioner's original work has affected the field as a whole or otherwise equates to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Project Coordinator of 
.____ ____ __, 
states: 
is Europe's largest and most spectacular annual charity event dedicated to the 
fight against HIV and AIDS. It attracts huge interest in the media and is broadcast live on 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Austrian National TV prime time, aired delayed in Germany. . . . This past year, [the 
petitioner] organized international press and YIP's going to the on a dedicated 
plane sponsored by and we have already signed her up to do it 
again next year. 
For us, [the petitioner] proved that she is an absolute visionary when it comes to balancing 
the artistic and strategic concerns of so complex and prominent an endeavor. [The petitioner] 
has established herself as one of the best public relations consultants working anywhere in 
the world today. 
states that the petitioner "organized international press and YIP's going to the 
on a dedicated plane sponsored by ' but does explain how coordinating 
a charter flight to an annual charity event in Austria rises to the level of original artistic contributions 
of major significance in the field. In addition, asserts that the petitioner is "one of the 
best public relations consultants working anywhere in the world today." USCIS, however, need not 
rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17; see also 
Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 13 4-35. 
Marketing and Development Director for 
focused on artistically oriented organizations, states: 
a public relations company 
[The petitioner] is an individual of extraordinary ability and one of the most important 
professionals in high fashion publicity and marketing today. I base this conclusion upon a 
review of the beneficiary's career, which includes major creative contributions on behalf of 
some of the most highly regarded designers of haute couture and high fashion ready-to-wear 
collections. Her clients include major trend-leaders such as 
to name but a few. I have 
also considered the positive media coverage she creates through her work on their behalf, 
which includes attention in the pages of and countless others. 
* * * 
I readily certify that [the petitioner] has maintained a level of superior artistic and 
professional achievement which has won her sustained national and international acclaim. In 
my professional opinion, she is an important and extraordinary artist with a truly original 
vision. 
asserts that the petitioner is an "extraordinary artist" and "an individual of 
extraordinary ability," and that the petitioner has garnered "sustained national and international 
acclaim." Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations, however, does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 11 08 (E.D.N.Y. 
19 89), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 
WL 18 8942 at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, identifies several of the petitioner's 
clients and points to coverage in fashion magazines that the clients' products garnered with the help 
of the petitioner, but does not identify specific examples of how the petitioner's work has affected 
the industry or was otherwise of major significance in the fashion production field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17. In addition, 
uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' 
decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of 
Caron Int'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. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially 
impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an October 23, 2013 letter accompanying the petition stating: 
(T]he normal mode of showcase for the work of [the petitioner] is via publications, fashion 
shows, large scale events and world-wide advertising campaigns. 
Europe's largest AIDS research fundraiser had 40,000 individuals attend. [The 
petitioner] was directly responsible for the production of this event. There can be no 
question that her work has been and is today, shown around the world to countless millions 
of individuals as demonstrated by the vast list of publications her work has appeared in. 
With regard to the the submitted evidence does not support the petitioner's 
claim that she "was directly responsible for the production of this event." For example, 
the Project Coordinator of , only mentioned that the petitioner "organized international press 
and YIP's going to the on a dedicated plane sponsored by " 
did not specify the petitioner's responsibilities at the 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a news release from the Press Office identifying 
as the "Organizer of '' The news release further states that the "event will feature 
runway shows from renowned and globally recognized American designers 
." There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work was on display at the Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an April 23, 2014 letter 
stating: "Every runway show, fashion editorial or photo shoot is an artistic creation and that is exactly 
what [the petitioner] is responsible for producing. There is simply no question that her work has been 
displayed in countless artistic exhibitions and showcases in the fashion industry around the world ... . " 
The director noted that the petitioner did "not create the product" on display and, therefore, did not 
meet the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. On appeal, the petitioner states: 
[T]he Service state[ d] that I have not met this criterion as not "meeting the plain language of 
this criterion" challenging my contribution as not evidence of my work in the relating 
"exhibitions," as my contribution was on behalf of the artists themselves. That as my role 
involved the advertising and sale of the artist's work, that my contribution cannot be 
considered as "display of the alien's work." And again, the Service imposes its opinion, that 
to meet this criterion one must show that such artistic work be for the purpose of 
"present [ing] art work for public viewing." One must question the conclusion of the Service, 
in limit[ing] artistic work to "viewing. " 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion, however, requires "display" of the petitioner's work in 
the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has met these requirements. Performing marketing responsibilities, scheduling 
photographers and models, and offering consultations do not meet the elements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. 
As previously mentioned, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
4 
Editor-in-Chief, 
stating that the magazine "regularly enlisted" the petitioner's skills as a fashion producer, 
that the petitioner "has worked on several crucial shoots for [the] publication, including editorials 
with ," that the petitioner's work "positively influence[ d] both the 
experience of the shoot and the final product," and that "the shoots she oversees are always complete 
successes." Accordingly, the petitioner appears to have performed in a critical role for 
The petitioner, however, did not submit any documentary evidence showing that has a 
distinguished reputation. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 16 5. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Marketing Director, stating: 
"I reached out to [the petitioner] to producer [sic] all of our campaign and catalogue shoots. Our new 
campaign featuring is an incredible success and this also [sic] due to the 
hard work of [the petition er]." Thus, the petitioner appears to have performed in a critical role for 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The petitioner, however, did not submit any documentary evidence showing that 
has a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner asserts that she has performed in a leading or critical role for 
With respect to the petitioner's assertion, the director's decision 
stated: 
[The petitioner] does not have a leadership role for any of these organizations. It must therefore 
be demonstrated that that her role has somehow been critical to at least some of these 
organizations. The petitioner was requested to provide evidence describing how her role has 
been critical to these organizations. 
In addition, the director indicated that "suggested evidence" could include letters from former clients 
indicating "at least some increase in sales that could be attributed to the petitioner." The director 
determined that the petitioner's list of clients alone was not sufficient to support her statement that she 
performed in a leading or critical role on their behalf. The director further stated: 
The petitioner failed to provide evidence to support [her] statement. Letters from these 
companies would have been helpful. Additionally, if it could have been shown that a majority 
of her high profile clients continuously offer her ongoing contracts, it would have at least 
suggested a role of some importance. This type of evidence was not submitted. 
On appeal, the petitioner mentions her salary "in excess of $170,000.00" as evidence for this regulatory 
criterion. The regulations, however, include a separate criterion for commanding a high salary in 
relation to others in the field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and the petitioner's earnings will be 
addressed there. The issue here is not the petitioner's salary, but whether she has performed in a leading 
or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations. 
In addition, the petitioner states: 
[B]y listing my list of clients, it is obvious that my contributions are major to their organization, 
and to require sales records are [sic] not something that is going to be offered by these clients. 
The list of the clients, [sic] make it reasonable that the Service should be aware of these 
organization[ s] and their major contributions and sales in the field. Evidence of their sales 
should not be a reason for denial ofthis criteri[on] , and obviously I would not be contracted by 
these clients if my work was not extraordinary .. .. 
The director, however, did not require evidence of the petitioner's clients' sales records. Rather, "sales 
records" were a type of evidence that the director "suggested" could help the petitioner demonstrate her 
eligibility. In addition, the petitioner's assertion "that the Service should be aware of these 
organization [ s] and their major contributions and sales in the field" is not without merit. The petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). With regard to the 
aforementioned individuals, organizations, and publications, the petitioner did not submit any letters of 
support or other evidence originating . from them that discuss the specific work performed by the 
petitioner and how her role as a fashion producer was leading or critical to the organizations. There is 
no documentary evidence differentiating the petitioner's role from that of the other staff and 
contractual service providers, let alone from that of the organizations' management, so as to 
demonstrate her leading role. In addition, the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner 
was responsible for the above organizations and establishments' success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "critical role." The petitioner did not submit, for instance, evidence 
from the owners, senior managers, or editors discussing the significance of her specific contributions 
to the above organizations and establishments beyond their need to hire fashion producers to 
coordinate their photo shoots or other promotional campaigns. Lastly, the petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence showing that the aforementioned organizations have a distinguished 
reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted her 2012 and 2013 U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns reflecting 
partnership income from her company, of $171,343.00 and $366,859.00, 
respectively. The petitioner also submitted the petitioner's Employment 
Agreement that identifies the petitioner as a Partner and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The 
submitted documentation, however, does not indicate the amount of the petitioner's income 
attributable to her fashion producer salary versus her partnership income and CEO compensation. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted July 2013 -June 2014 "Online Wage Library" Foreign Labor 
Certification "Wage Results" for the New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles areas indicating that the 
Level 4 (fully competent) yearly prevailing wage for producers and directors in the stage, television, 
radio, video, and motion picture occupations was $148,346.00, $91,603.00, and $176,634.00, 
respectively. 2 The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that she has earned a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field, not just a salary that is 
above the amount paid to the majority of fully competent producers and directors in the New York, 
Chicago, and Los Angeles areas. Furthermore, the accompanying descriptions for the producer and 
director occupations were not similar to the petitioner's job duties as a fashion producer such that the 
salaries for those occupational categories would represent appropriate bases for comparison in 
demonstrating that the petitioner's salary was high in relation to others in the field. 
2 A "prevailing wage" is defined as "trade and public work wages paid to the majority of workers in a specific 
area." See http:Uwww.businessdictiona ry.com/definition/prevailing-wage.html, accessed on January 12, 
2015, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
The petitioner also submitted data from www. -_ ____jlisting "Fashion Production Manager" 
salaries from four companies that had job openings in New York in 2007. This limited data is not 
timely and does not present a sufficient basis for comparison in showing that the petitione r's 20 12 
and 2013 salaries were high relative to those of others in the field. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Job listing data from www. stating that the "average" fashion production 
salary as of October 22, 2013 was $64,000.00; 
2. Job listing data from www. stating that the "average" fashion show 
production salary as of October 22, 2013 was $53,000.00; and 
3. Job posting data from www for fashion production coordinator salaries in 
New York stating that the "average" fashion production coordinator salary as of October 
22, 2013 was $55,000.00. 
The petitione r's reliance on average salary data compiled from job openings is not a proper basis for 
comparison. First, the petitioner must submit evidence showing that she has earned a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration relative to others in the field, not just a salary that is above 
average in her field. Furthermore, the submitted salary data is limited to only current job vacancies 
and excludes data for filled positions. 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remunera tion" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712 , 713-14 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary inf ormation for those perf orming lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); see also Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) 
(comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen); Crimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enf orcers); Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 19 94) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The submitted evidence does not show that the 
petitioner has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in her field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
C. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The record reflects that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petition for an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. Although the words "extraordinary ability" are 
used in the Act for classification of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 and the first preference 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
employmen t-based immigrant categories, the statute and regulations define the term differently for each 
classification. Section 10l (a)(46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary ability' means, for 
purposes of section 10l( a)(1 5)( 0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction ." The 0-1 regulation reiterates 
that "[e] xtraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(o)(3)(ii) . 
"Distinction" is a different standard than that required for the immigrant classification, which defines 
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. § 204.5(hX2). The evidentiary 
criteria for these two classifications also differ in several respects, for example, nominations for awards 
or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(o)(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant 
classification requires actual receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory and regulatory distinction between these two 
classifications, the petitioner's receipt of 0-1 nonimmigrant classification is not evidence of her 
eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Further, approval of a 
nonimmigrant visa does not mandate the approval of a similar immigrant visa. Each petition must be 
decided on a case-by-case basis upon review of the evidence of record. 
Many immigr ant 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 110 3. See also Texas 
A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not 
preclude users from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the 
individual 's qualifications). 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 r&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 19 88). USCrS is not required to treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. See Sussex Eng 'g Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 19 87), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers 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 the alien, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, *1 , *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 
2000), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 12 2 S.Ct. 51 (200 1). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). 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 evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
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 benef it sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOti ende, 26 I&N Dec. at 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see 
also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the ju risdiction to decide visa petitions) .