dismissed EB-1A Case: Hair Styling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2023 In Re: 28949852 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a hair stylist, seeks classification as an individual of 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 (EB-1) 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 had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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)(A) 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 m 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their 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 that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a hair stylist who has participated in fashion-related competitions and performed 
work as a hair stylist in support of film productions abroad, among other things. He provided evidence 
such as a sublease for a hair stylist chair from a salon as his means to provide hair styling services to 
his customers, and he intends to continue working as a hair stylist in the United States should this 
petition be approved. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he 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 only met the plain language 
requirements of the two evidentiary criteria relating to awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and leading 
or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) evidentiary criteria 
relating to published material (iii), judging (iv), and original contributions (v). He does not assert 
eligibility under the membership (ii), authorship (vi), display of work (vii), high salary (ix), or 
commercial success (x) criteria. Therefore, we deem these issues to be waived and will not address 
these criteria in our decision. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
While we may not discuss every document in the record, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
Based on our de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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) 
2 
In general, a leading role may be evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which an 
individual is responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. To meet this 
criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he has performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or establishment. 
For a leading role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading. For a critical role, we 
determine whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion through his role as a guest lecturer at the Instituto 
(I-) located in Florida, and as a hair stylist for films produced byl I~----------~ (L-) a film production studio located in Russia. The Director determined that the Petitioner met this 
criterion, however we withdraw the Director's determination for the following reasons. 
With regard to his involvement with I-, the Petitioner references letters froml l(Ms. 
M-), who is said to be employed by I- as a fashion styling professor. Ms. M- states that she invited 
the Petitioner to be a guest lecturer "on occasion" in order to share "his views and approaches to 
creative styling [which] showed the students how to 'feel the fashion,' integrating the spirit of style 
into the experience of learners on a daily basis, [ and to share] his knowledge of European fashion 
trends and the way they can be combined with each other or with other cultural influences .... " Ms. 
M- does not indicate whether the Petitioner has ever been employed by I- nor does she explain how 
his leadership and critical role contributions to I- compares to others holding positions of authority 
and responsibility within the organization. While we acknowledge that I- may enjoy a distinguished 
reputation as an international fashion school, without more, the evidence falls short in establishing 
how the Petitioner's involvement as a guest lecturer at I- translates into his performing a leading or 
critical role for the I- organization, itself. 
Turning to his activities for the L- film production studio, the Petitioner provides a letter fromc=J
I l(Ms. T-), who worked with the Petitioner as an actress on films produced by L-. Ms. T- states 
that "during the Soviet era, [L-] was the second largest production branch of the Soviet film industry, 
which incorporated more than 30 film studios located across the former Soviet Union." The Petitioner 
also provided two pages from L-' s website which indicate that it is still producing films in Russia. 
However, the record does not substantiate that L- possesses a distinguished reputation as a film studio 
in the film production industry. 
Ms. T- speaks favorably of the hair styling work performed by the Petitioner in the film productions 
that they were mutually involved with, noting for instance that he "is a creative thinker in the first tum, 
[] always organized, responsible and diligent, and related well to all the actors and film crew 
members," and worked "as a hair and fashion stylist for major Russian celebrity actors at [L-]." She 
notes that she personally employed him as her own hair stylist for an appearance at an awards 
ceremony. However, the record lacks contemporaneous, documentary evidence to establish the 
Petitioner's employment, if any, by L-, nor has the Petitioner provided evidence from the L-
3 
organization itself to detail the specifics of his role and responsibilities there. Without more, we 
conclude that this evidence is of little probative value to the issue at hand. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that he 
meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In order to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must show that they 
have not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that they actually participated in the 
judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2, supra. 
The Director determined that the evidence provided did not adequately support the Petitioner's claim 
that he has judged the work of others in the field through acting as an "examinations" judge of students' 
work at I-. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he previously "provided evidence of his invitation to 
join the panel and his active participation as a jury member." He points to Ms. M-'s May 2022 letter 
and internet materials about I-, asserting that this evidence "clearly established" the Petitioner's 
eligibility for this criterion. 
In her letter, Ms. M- explains that the Petitioner was "invited to judge the works of [f]ashion students 
at the end of their educational journey (as their final step to obtain their diploma). [He] was invited 
as a judge in February 2020 as the hair stylist expert alongside a famous professor of fashion 
photography [] and many other professional judges who were to express their opinions on the students' 
full fashion work." However, the record does not include contemporaneous evidence confirming his 
invitation to act as a judge at this or other events. Additionally, there is insufficient documentary 
evidence in the record corroborating the Petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others for 
I- or at events sponsored by other entities. 
Further, the submitted internet-based information about I- makes no mention of the examinations that 
the Petitioner contends he judged. Here, the record lacks evidence as to what I-'s February 2020 "full 
fashion" examinations entailed, including the criteria considered by judges in selecting winners of the 
examinations if the judging involved evaluating competitive entries by diploma candidates, or the 
scoring mechanisms used to otherwise determine the candidates had passed the examinations. Without 
additional probative information, we cannot determine whether judging this event entailed judging the 
work of others in the Petitioner's claimed field of expertise or an allied field. In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter 
cf Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. For these reasons, we conclude the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the _field for which class[fication 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). 
4 
To determine whether the Petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of this 
criterion, we first determine whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 
Second, USCIS determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade 
publication, or major media publication. In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a 
professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended 
audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or 
viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
supra. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted articles about his work, and the circulation 
statistics for the publications where they appeared. The Director discussed the evidence and 
determined that it was insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Based 
on our review of the record, we agree that the Petitioner has not established the articles about his work 
and accomplishments were published in professional, major trade, or major media publications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in analyzing the evidence submitted under this 
criterion, noting "USCIS should focus on the circulation of the publication, its intended audience if it 
is a professional or trade publication, or the editorial influence of the media source, rather than solely 
[on] whether the publication is national in scope." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the Director 
did not evaluate whether these publications enjoyed a national readership, either in her request for 
evidence (RFE) or in the denial. Rather, she asked for evidence in his RFE about the comparative 
circulation of the publications to other publications, and for additional information about the nature of 
their intended audiences. But the Petitioner did not sufficiently address these aspects, either in his 
RFE response or in the appeal brief "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
On appeal, the Petitioner references a 2006 article in the'.
_________ ____,' (K-P-) newspaper, 
which discusses among other things, the Petitioner's first place showing in a hairstyling competition. 
The documentation included evidence reflecting a 26,000-copy circulation for K-P- in that year. In 
response to the Director's RFE, he also submitted material from of K-P-'s website which identifies 
the number of digital visits to its website in 2022, 16 years after the article was published. Similarly, 
he points to another 2006 article published in thel l{T-P-) newspaper which discusses 
the Petitioner's competitive achievements as a member of a college team. T-P- had a circulation of 
3,500 at that time and the Petitioner also provided evidence of T-P-'s 2022 website visit numbers. 
We conclude this evidence does not sufficiently illustrate that the level of circulation for either of these 
publications in 2006 was indicative of a major media publication, nor does it establish the intended 
audience of these publications. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these newspapers 
constitute qualifying publications in order to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner also references a previously submitted un-dated article that appeared inl l(M­
M-). During this interview, the Petitioner discusses the hair stylist competitions that he participated 
5 
in during the roughly six-year time period from 2006 to 2011. In the article, he shares that he no 
longer competes in such contests but still enjoys working in the "Art" style. The limited information 
in the record about M-M- suggests that it is an internet-based Russian language periodical published 
in Florida, with a viewership of less than 5,000 visits a month. Without more, this material does not 
show that this article appeared in a qualifying publication. Chawathe, supra. 
This evidentiary criterion has not been met. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria 
discussed above. As such, the Petitioner has not met the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(v) 
cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve and will not address this remaining 
issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies 
are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see 
also Matter ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n. l O(BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
C. Prior 0-1 Approval 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has been the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 petition. Although 
USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated 
based on a different statute, regulations, and case law. The nonimmigrant and immigrant categories 
have different criteria, definitions and standards for persons working in the arts. "Extraordinary ability 
in the field of arts" in the nonimmigrant 0-1 category means distinction. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
But in the immigrant context, "extraordinary ability" reflects that the individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field. 
Finally, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, 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 an individual, we are not 
bound by a decision of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), ajf'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the material in the aggregate, concluding that while the Petitioner previously 
achieved some success as a hair stylist, the record does not support a finding that he has established 
the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
6 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of their 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 they are one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7