dismissed EB-1A Case: Furniture Making

U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1 1 53(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. 
-/!!+=- 
4 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
/ Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualie 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. $204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on Januarv 9, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
-, 
a ''furniture dealer or maker." A ~a~'l2, 2006 letter from the Decking Assistant Manager for- 
m states that the petitioner "holds a woodworking position within the company." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
Page 3 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted his identity card for the Carpenter and Tree Work Association in Turkey. The petitioner 
also submitted his "Trades and Artist Register Confli]rmation" document from the Turkey Trades and Artist 
Confederation and his "Chamber Registration Document" from the Izmir Carpenter and Tree Work Chamber. 
The record, however, includes no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) 
showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's or an allied field. As such, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an "Industrial Design Registration 
Certificate" issued to him in 2001 by the "Turkish Patent Institution" for his jewelry box design. The record, 
however, includes no evidence that this design represents a contribution of major significance in the 
petitioner's field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be 
not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While this registration certificate may indicate that the 
petitioner has developed an original design, there is no evidence showing substantial commercial interest in 
this jewelry box, its widespread manufacture, or that it has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution of 
major significance in the petitioner's field. Moreover, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
"contributions of major significance in the field." The petitioner's development of a single jewelry box 
design does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted what are alleged to be photographs of his work and marketing materials displaying 
his work. The preceding items were not accompanied by evidence (such as an art brochure or event program) 
identifying the specific exhibition or showcase in which they appeared. In this case, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's woodworking and furniture creations have been displayed at significant 
Page 4 
artistic venues consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the$eld 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted copies of his pay receipts from 
Carl's Fencing for June and July 2006. The petitioner earned this compensation subsequent to the petition's 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these 
earnings in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the petitioner's $15.00 hourly wage was 
significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.