dismissed EB-1A Case: Furniture Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 11, 2024 In Re: 31843875 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a furniture designer who seeks classification under the employment-based, first 
preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See 
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 qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of 
a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or as someone who initially 
satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they 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). 
Where a petitioner demonstrates that they meet 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. 
20 l0) ( 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 claims to be an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts based on his skills and 
experience as a furniture designer. The Petitioner provided evidence that he currently owns and 
operates his own business where he sells the furniture he designs. 
The Petitioner does not claim or submit evidence to show that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award. He must therefore provide evidence showing that he satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). The Petitioner claim that he has satisfied 
the elements of the three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), evidence of published 
material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other major media; and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), evidence that the Petitioner's work has been displayed at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and (vii), he did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) because he did not submit 
evidence establishing that the articles about him and his work were published in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
In determining whether a petitioner satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we first 
consider whether published materials relate to the petitioner and their specific work in their field. See 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
If the record shows that the Petitioner met these requirements, we will then decide whether the 
submitted articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided a list describing the articles 
he was submitting as part of the response. For each listed article the Petitioner provided the title, 
author, date, and publication. 1 Although the Petitioner also listed the intended audience and 
circulation for each publication, he did not cite the source of circulation data to support its reliability, 
nor did he provide rankings for the publications to demonstrate that they constitute major media. 
Further, although the Petitioner included six online articles among his list of publications, he did not 
specifically articulate why the online articles should be considered professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, nor did he submit visitation data for these sites or comparisons to 
other websites to establish that they can be considered professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. See id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the articles he submitted "most definitely appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media." The Petitioner also resubmits the 
previously submitted evidence regarding this criterion and states that the publications included 
"national and international newspapers and major designs magazines ... with large volume of 
circulation in Thailand and other countries." However, the Petitioner still has not offered objective 
supporting evidence to substantiate the circulation data he provided or to establish how that circulation 
data compares to that of other publications to establish that these sources could in fact be considered 
major media. Nor has the Petitioner supplemented the record with the publications' respective 
rankings to demonstrate that they constitute major trade publications or other major media. Likewise, 
the Petitioner has not submitted visitation data for the websites containing his listed online articles or 
comparisons to other websites to establish that they can be considered professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the evidence he provided satisfies the 
evidentiary requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Lastly, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated his satisfaction of at least three of the IO initial 
evidentiary requirements for the requested immigrant visa category, we need not make a final merits 
determination as to his eligibility as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability in his field and hereby 
reserve his appellate arguments in that regard. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating 
that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate 
decisions); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternate issues on appeal where an applicant does not otherwise qualify for relief). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner provided foreign articles with their respective translations. However, the translations do not appear to be 
fully compliant with the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(3 ), which requires the translator of the foreign material to certify 
that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. Here, the translations contain a notation with the translator's name and initials stated that 
the translation is "certified correct." There is no confirmation from the translator as to the completeness of the translation 
or the translator's competency to translate from the foreign language into English as required by the regulation. 
3