dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Design

U.S. Department of flomeland Security 
identifying data deleted to 
 U. S. C~tizensh~p and Imrmgration Servlces 
Office ofAdmrn~stratrve Appeals MS 2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
 Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal prim 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 07 119 52139 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
nssom 
 n, 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
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 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. fj 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. 5 204.5(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 March 14, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an industrial designer. 
Page 3 
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 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. Neither 
counsel nor the petitioner claim that the petitioner meets any criterion not discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted a letter dated November 2006 from 
 President of the 
National Designer's Association. 
 The name of the association is Andiseno. The letter was 
accompanied by an uncertified translation. The letter confirmed the petitioner's membership and 
stated that the petitioner was one of the "key persons to found this association in October of 1996." 
The petitioner also provided a list of goals for Andiseno with another uncertified translation. On 
appeal, the petitioner refers to this document as the articles of incorporation. However, the 
document does not appear to be official, as it is not on letterhead and is not certified by the state or 
otherwise. Additionally, two articles from Diseno were provided, also without certified translations. 
One of the articles stated that Andiseno had its first national meeting and that the petitioner was 
elected to be the organization's Financial Director. The second article noted that Andiseno 
celebrated its second anniversary of providing service to Columbian designers. 
The director, in his decision, stated that the petitioner claimed to be a founding member of Andiseno, 
but that no documentary evidence was submitted to establish that outstanding achievements were 
required to be a founding member. As such, the director found the petitioner had not met this 
requirement. On appeal, no new evidence was provided. However, on appeal, counsel argues that, 
Page 4 
The Service did not take into account the affidavit filed and the magazines' articles 
enclosed in the petition, and the fact that this is the First Association in the Designs 
field incorporated in the Country. 
We agree with the director, and find the petitioner failed to fulfill this criterion. The evidence 
provided was deficient insofar as certified translations were not provided for any of the documents. 
Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
Nonetheless, even if the submitted translations were certified, the evidence provided still fails to 
meet this criterion. The petitioner failed to demonstrate outstanding achievements are required for 
membership in Andiseno or for founding members of the group. The record also lacks evidence 
such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements establishing that the organizations 
require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. The goals of the organization were provided, which included union, 
disclosure and projection. However, none of these goals appear to be consistent with excellence or 
exclusivity, but instead relate to generating business and opportunities for designers. Moreover, 
although the petitioner's brief claims that Andiseno is the first association in the design field that 
was incorporated in Colombia, there is no evidence to support this proposition. 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 (Comm. 1998). In addition, as 
mentioned above, the evidence provided to show incorporation is problematic. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 classiJication is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unhke small local community papers.' 
1 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted an article from Diseno, which stated that Andiseno had its first national 
meeting. It also noted that the petitioner was elected to be the organization's Financial Director. 
The petitioner also submitted an article from Casa & Estila. Both articles were translated, however 
certified translations were not provided as required by 8 C.F.R. €j 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the 
regulatory parameters require that the date and author of the material be provided. Yet, the authors 
of the articles were not provided and the dates were not translated. It is also unclear whether the 
article in Diseno was an advertisement purchased by the organization. Nonetheless, neither article 
can be considered "about the alien" because the article in Diseno only briefly mentions the petitioner 
and the article in Casa & Estila does not even reference the petitioner. 
No new evidence was provided in response to the RFE or on appeal. However, counsel claims on 
appeal that the petitioner met this criterion because his "designs year by year has (have) been 
chosen, fabricated and displayed in the most important and bigger exhibitions and showcases." As 
no further evidence was provided to demonstrate the petitioner's designs were published in a 
professional or major trade publication, or other major media, this argument has no evidentiary 
support. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner also failed to provide any evidence about Diseno and Casa & Estila, such as, a 
widespread distribution, readership, or overall interest in either publication to demonstrate that they are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner initially submitted a list of five fairs and shows where he purports to have displayed 
his designs. The petitioner provided information on the trade show called "Coverings," which took 
place April 17-20, 2007 in Chicago, Illinois, including a promotional pamphlet, internet printouts 
from www.coverings.com, an article from Casa & Estila about a "Coverings" event in Florida and 
promotional materials for "Coverings" 2004 from Euroceramica. In addition, an internet printout 
from www.surfaces.com with details of the "Surfaces" exhibit in Las Vegas, Nevada in February of 
2007 was provided. In response to the WE, a name tag for the "Coverings" show in Miami, Florida 
indicating that the petitioner was an exhibitor for Euroceramica S.A. was submitted. He also 
provided a credential for a show, "Columbian Building Materials and Hardware Showroom," 
indicating that Euroceramica was an exhibitor, as well as contact information for the company and 
its booth number. However, none of the evidence for this show demonstrated that the petitioner's 
designs were displayed. No new evidence was submitted on appeal. Nonetheless, counsel asserts on 
appeal that the petitioner's "designs were exhibited in some of the biggest business trade shows, 
which supports its specialty, and that positioned him as one at the top five percentage of designers 
with sustain national and international acclaim." As aforementioned, it is insufficient to go on 
record without supporting documentary evidence for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJlci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. As the petitioner failed to submit 
Page 6 
documentary evidence that his designs were actually displayed at these various exhibitions, he has 
not met his burden of proof. 
Frequent display of artwork is intrinsic to most professions in the visual arts. However, duties or 
activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in 
a substantial proportion of positions within that occupation. In this case, the record documents the 
petitioner's involvement in one "Coverings" show and also provides information regarding other 
exhibitions in which the petitioner claims to have displayed his designs. Even assuming that the 
petitioner provided evidence to show that his work was actually displayed in all the claimed trade 
shows, the record contains no persuasive evidence to establish that these events were nationally or 
internationally recognized as premier exhibitions in the petitioner's field or that the petitioner's work 
was otherwise displayed in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner's work displayed at these exhibitions was 
critically acclaimed. In review, the relevant evidence does not establish that the petitioner has displayed 
his designs at artistic exhibitions or showcases in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained 
acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following evidence relevant to this criterion: 
November 24, 2006, stated that the petitioner produced new products for the company and 
that he was employed for the company from August 1996 until December 1997. According 
to the letter, in 1997, the petitioner was offered partnership in the company and assigned the 
role of consultant as well. 
2. A reference letter from General Manager of Ladrillera-Galpon Medellin, dated 
October 5, 2006, stated that the petitioner created a new line of roof tile for his company in 
February of 1989, among other lines. According to the letter, the petitioner was also given 
stock in the com an so that he would continue to provide the company with his experience. 
3. A letter from 
 Manager of Terrazul, dated October 14, 2006, credited the 
petitioner for designing a line of religious figures, which is one of her company's most 
successfU1 ~roducts. 
A reference letter from the petitioner's university professor, - 
dated October 3,2006, that confirmed the petitioner was elected to the Faculty Counsel from 
1998 to 1999. 
5. A confirmation letter dated September 1, 2006 from the Human Resources Office stated that 
the petitioner was the chair of the Industrial Design Faculty for two semesters, one in 1994 
and another in 1995. 
6. An article in Diseno dated 1998 stating that Andiseno had its first national meeting and that 
the petitioner was elected to be its Financial Director. 
7. An article in Edicion Especial Semana, dated May 2005, entitled "The 100 Largest 
Columbian Companies" was submitted. 
In response to the RFE and on appeal, no new evidence was submitted. The director found the 
evidence was not sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
With regard to all the evidence listed above, for Items 1 through 7, the petitioner failed to provide 
certified translations of the original documents. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified 
translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the translations in Items 2 and 6 failed to 
translate the date, which appears on the original document. 
In addition to the deficiencies with the translations of the evidence, the petitioner has failed to 
establish the nature of his role within the organizations or establishments so as to show that he held a 
leading or critical position. For example, there is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role 
differentiated him fiom the others in the company or organization, nor is there any evidence detailing 
the responsibilities of his various positions. 
Further, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the establishments, where the petitioner claims 
to have performed a leadership role, have distinguished reputations. With respect to this regulatory 
requirement, Item 7 was provided. However, only a partial translation was submitted, and the petitioner 
failed to provide the fill article. Moreover, the article ranks various corporations where the petitioner 
has claimed employment. However, he has not claimed to have leadership roles in any of the 
corporations that were ranked. Moreover, most of the roles claimed to be held by the petitioner 
occurred between eight and 18 years before the petition was filed. Such a lapse in time would be 
insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim in the petitioner's field. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following evidence relevant to this criterion: 
1. A catalogue and/or portfolio entitled, "An Artist Designing," published by Industrial 
Designer was provided. It lists all the different services and products of Industrial Designer, 
and also has information on the petitioner as a designer for the company. 
2. A list of the petitioner's designs and products, created by him or his attorney. 
3. A reference letter, from General Manager of Esmalgres S.A., dated October 
18, 2006, stated that the petitioner designed a line called "Engraving." She claimed it was 
the "most sold and beautiful lines at the International level." She also wrote that the 
petitioner was a representative for the company, "which rendered good economical results 
for both parties." (The reference letter was accompanied by an internet printout from the 
company's website, www.clavandtile.com, with a background of the company.) 
November 24, 2006, stated that the petitioner produced new products for the company, and 
that he was employed for the company from August 1996 until December 1997. After that, 
the letter indicates that he was offered 
 and a consulting position, in the company. 
5. A reference letter, from- General Manager of Ladrillera-Galpon Medellin, dated 
October 5, 2006, stated that the petitioner created a new line of roof tile for his company in 
February of 1989, among other lines. He wrote that the company saw an "increase in income 
due to the sales" of the petitioner's new products. The petitioner was also given stock in the 
- 
company, so that he would continue to rovide the company with his experience. 
6. A reference letter, from , Product Manager of Mancesa, dated October 4, 
2006, stated that the petitioner designed products for the company for almost 4 years. (The 
letter was accompanied by the company's promotional material.) 
7. A letter from 
 Manager of Terrazul, dated October 14, 2006, credited the 
petitioner with designing a successful line of religious figures. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner provided only one new piece of evidence, a certification, dated 
May 15,2008, from., Manager of Alfarera. The certification stated that the 
petitioner designed a brick product that "has permitted the (our) company to maintain good volume 
of production and some important incomes during the last two years." The petitioner's WE 
response also discussed the various designs he was involved in and specifically stated that A.I.C. 
Trading Corporation increased its sales "10% over the budgeted sales" because of the ceramic tile, 
"Marbella," designed by the petitioner. However, the record does not contain any documentation of 
these increases in sales. 
The director's decision found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion because he failed to 
provide any documentary evidence to establish commercial success. No new evidence was provided 
on appeal. We concur with the director's finding that no documentary evidence was provided to 
support this criterion. This regulatory criterion calls for evidence of commercial successes in the form 
of "sales" or "receipts." Simply submitting evidence indicating that the petitioner designed many 
industrial products does not meet the plain language of this criterion. Moreover, although the reference 
letters claim that the designs created by the petitioner created "good economical results" (Item 3) or 
increased income (Item 5) or were just referred to as being a success (Item 7), these claims were not 
substantiated with any proof. Also, the petitioner argued in response to the RFE that becoming a 
partner indicates commercial success (Item 4). However, there was no proof that commercial 
success was attained through his position as partner. The record does not include evidence of 
documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner achieved commercial successes in the 
performing arts in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. Items 3-7 are all reference letters. Further, Items 1 and 2 only detail the petitioner's 
designs and do not provide evidence to demonstrate commercial success. Additionally, Items 3 
through 7 were not submitted with certified translations as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Moreover, the plain language of the criterion requires evidence of commercial success in the 
performing arts. No claim has been made that the beneficiary's field involves the performing arts. 
Even if the category were expanded to include commercial success in all fields, as stated above, the 
Page 9 
petitioner presented no evidence to show that the beneficiary was responsible for the petitioner's 
revenue. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets ths criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner submitted "'other comparable evidence7 to indicate 
having risen to the very top of the field," but counsel does not specify what evidence she considers 
comparable. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable 
evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by 
the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable 
to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
The reference letters submitted in support of this petition have already been addressed under the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vii), (viii) and (x). Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the documentation the petitioner provided constitutes achievements and recognition 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. While 
reference letters can provide usehl information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning 
weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for other evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The classification sought 
requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress 
that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in ths regulation by 
requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser 
classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and 
recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
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. 5 204.5(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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
Page 10 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.