dismissed EB-1A Case: Jewelry And Fashion Design

Us. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Sewices 
OAice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PdBEPC COPY 
LIN 06 253 52550 
IN RE: 
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: 
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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,U&/aJb?Cb_ 
-'John F. Grissom 
6, Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Oflice (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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined 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 she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
This petition, filed on August 14,2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a jewelry and fashion designer. The petitioner initially submitted evidence of an approval of a nonirnrnigrant 
visa petitions (F-1 and H-lBl), award certificates, copies of her education degrees, information about the 
Fashion Institute of Technology ("FIT"), information about the Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of 
America ("MJSA"), pictures of jewelry pieces that she designed, information about the Tahitian Pearl 
Trophy, news articles, tax documents, and eight letters of recommendation. In response to a Request for 
Evidence ("RFE) dated May 10, 2007, the petitioner submitted a copy of her portfolio, information about 
pieces submitted to various competitions, information about the various jewelry organizations and awards 
sponsored, news articles, and four additional letters of recommendation. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
information about the competitions in which she participated and additional awards won. 
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 
Page 3 
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. 5 204.5(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. 
The petitioner does not claim that she meets any of the criteria not discussed below. 
6) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner presented evidence that she won the following awards: second place in the Eight Annual DWA 
Award Design Competition in 2004; first place pearl row category, second place necklace category, and third 
place brooch category in the 4th Edition Tahitian Pearl contest; third place in the student category in the 2005 
Swarovski design contest; second place in the student category in the 14~ Annual American Vision Awards; 
and fifth place in the professional category in the 2006 Swarovski design contest. Although the petitioner 
submitted her design pieces to Swarovski for the 2006 contest before filing this petition, the award was not 
made until 2007. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(1),(12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 1. & N. Dec. 45, 49 (Comrn. 1971). Accordingly, we will not consider the 2006 
Swarovski competition award. 
The 2005 Swarovski award and American Vision Award were both presented to the petitioner as a competitor 
in the student category of these competitions. The petitioner presented no evidence to show, if the competition 
was restricted to students, how the award would constitute an award for excellence in the field if it did not allow 
those working in the field, i.e. professional designers, to participate. On appeal, the petitioner argues that as "[a] 
design competition is about talent and innovation[,]" categories of participation are meaningless and that 
"extremely talented students can beat professionals." Although these statements are true, it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to prove that these particular awards conveyed recognition of overall excellence in the field which is 
difficult to do where the category of eligible participants is restricted to students. The fact that the American 
Vision Award has two categories with only a slight distinction between what a student submits as opposed to 
what a professional submits does not change the fact that amateurs are judged against only those designers with a 
comparable level of experience and education. Similarly, the Swarovski competition had three categories: 
professional, amateur, and student. The professional category does not restrict entrants so that a student or 
amateur could compete on that level if helshe so chose; as that category is not limited, its results are more 
indicative of national or international recognition within the field. Had the petitioner submitted the same jewelry 
pieces in the professional category of the Swarovski and American Vision Award competitions and achieved the 
same level of success, a different analysis would be undertaken. However, the petitioner presented no evidence to 
show that placing second or third place in the student category of these competitions conveys the same level of 
achievement within the field as placing second or third place in the professional category of the same 
competitions. 
Page 4 
The DIVA Award, similar to the student awards, restricts the entrants in its competition to women who have not 
previously won a first place DIVA Award. As the letter from Ann Arnold, president of the Women's Jewelry 
Association, stated: "The DIVA Award for Jewelry Design Competition truly encourages and fosters new design 
talent in the jewelry industry." An article in National Jeweler states that the competition is not for those persons 
who are at the top of their field, but instead the awards were "established . . . to showcase the work of up-and- 
corning women within the jewelry business." Based on the evidence provided, the DIVA Award is not an award 
for excellence in the field that would indicate that the designer had already risen to the top of the field but instead 
indicates that the award recipient shows promise and should be encouraged to reach the top of the field. As such, 
the DIVA Awards have not been shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
The Perles de Tahiti information submitted about the Tahitian pearl competition states that the competition "has 
become one of the most prestigious of the jewellry [sic] world" and that "[tlhe quality of the entries for this 
competition were extremely high and it can be assumed that designers who won rank among the top in the field of 
pearl jewelry designs at the international level." The winners of the Tahitian pearl competition were announced 
in three articles appearing in National Jeweler. Letters from experts in the field indicate that the competition is 
highly regarded and conveys national if not international acclaim. For example, Rater Wang, trade liaison 
director for the China branch of Platinum Guild International, wrote in a July 23, 2007 letter that "[tlhe world's 
top designers enter this prestigious event, which garners enormous publicity for its winners." Michael Coen, 
associate professor at FIT, stated that the competition "is an outstanding international event with immense 
industry media coverage." The evidence in the record demonstrates that winning a prize in this competition 
exhibits prestige indicating national and international recognition for excellence in the field. However, we do not 
find that the petitioner's receipt of a single award is sufficient to meet this highly restrictive classification. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence that her design was selected as a finalist in the 2008 Sau 
Bell Design Award Competition, she was a fmalist with the 2007 JCK Jeweler's Choice Awards, semifinalist in 
the 2007 Swarovski contest, and second place in the male jewelry category and first place in the accessory 
category of the 2007 Tahitian Pearl contest. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing; a petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. at 49. These contests occurred after 
the petition was filed in 2006; accordingly, we will not consider these awards. 
In light of the above, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classification 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, 
Page 5 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.' 
Although the petitioner presented a number of articles in which her name appears, she presented no published 
material that was primarily about her. The articles all concerned awards won by the petitioner and none of them 
included a detailed discussion of the petitioner or her work as opposed to merely announcing her name and the 
fact that she won an award. One article that the petitioner cites, "Star necklace makes a 'diva' of GIA graduate" 
published in the June 29,2006 edition of National Jeweler focuses upon the background of the first place winner 
of the DIVA Award and mentions the petitioner's name only briefly at the end of the article as another winner. 
Even if any of the articles submitted were primarily about the petitioner, a number of the "published material" 
included by the petitioner in support of her claim was printouts of websites promoting the organization that 
sponsored the award won by the petitioner. For example, the petitioner's photograph appeared on the website for 
the Women's Jewelry Association as the second place winner of the DIVA Award. The article appearing under 
the petitioner's photograph discussed the Women's Jewelry Association event held in conjunction with the award 
and the Association's criteria and guidelines for the award. Similarly, the petitioner's name was mentioned as an 
award winner on the Perles de Tahiti website. We are not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is 
a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is "major media." The petitioner must still demonstrate a 
widespread distribution, readership, or overall interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the 
publication is some sort of professional or major trade publication or major media in order for us to credit 
these articles. Only Modem Jeweler and National Jeweler would qualify as professional or major trade 
publications, however, none of the articles appearing within either publication's pages are considered to be 
about the petitioner as discussed above. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign~jicance in thefield. 
Initially, the petitioner claimed that she met this criterion by virtue of "her sophisticated and intrinsic 
knowledge and skills" and because "her works are sought after by many" (emphasis in original). In support 
of her assertion, the petitioner cited three letters of recommendation. While letters such as these provide 
relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish 
the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major 
significance in her field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom she has worked directly. Even 
when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry 
less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien 
who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
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 6 
wrote that the petitioner's "creations are of the highest level of design and execution, cutting 
edge in regards to fashion and have a solid basis for construction and manufacturability." 
 also 
noted that the petitioner has "this special and unique sort of talent" that allows her "to design for the fashion 
jewelry industry" in addition to fine jewelry. , a jewelry designer and television personality, 
wrote in a June 26, 2006 letter that the petitioner has a great eye for detail and her entries in the Swarovski 
competition "were well-designed and unparalleled to submissions even in the advanced categories of the 
competition." July 21, 2006 letter states that the petitioner "is unconventional, innovative, 
and unafiaid to take risks by combining new and conventional techniques" and she is "versatile[e]" because 
she combines jewelry and fashion. The letter further states that the petitioner's combination of fashion and 
jewelry has made "a unique style" that have won numerous awards and thus impacted the industry. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a second letter from both and Mr. 
July 30, 2007 letter states that the petitioner "is creating a new form of art by creating an entire 
piece of clothing using materials that are traditionally used for jewelry" (emphasis omitted). - 
stated that the petitioner is one "of few jewelry designers in the world today who are creating jewelry in the 
form of fashion" and that the petitioner is "spearheading a cutting-edge phenomenon that has won widespread 
critical acclaim." The July 26, 2007 letter fiom states that the petitioner "has literally created a 
new genre of art through the exquisite pieces she has produced. An important original aspect of her work is 
her spearheading of an avant-garde trend whereby jewelry is created in the form of actual clothing." Ms. 
continued: "There are few designers in the market today who can match [the petitioner] in terms of 
creative vision, unerring taste and an understanding of the practical, technical aspects of jewelry design." Ms. 
stated that the petitioner "received widespread national and international acclaim and she has been 
acknowledged by leading experts as a pioneering visionary whose work has important implications in the 
evolution of j ew elry design in the 2 1 " century." 
On appeal, the petitioner cites the July 21, 2006 letter written by, head designer at Harry 
Winston and adjunct professor at FIT, as a grand master whose opinion should be given great weight. Mr. 
stated that the petitioner "has demonstrated extraordinary talents" and "[hler ideas are often brilliant." 
Unlike the petitioner's assertion on appeal, is not an independent expert but is instead a colleague as 
he worked with or taught the petitioner at FIT. We note that the 
 titioner presented no evidence that her 
achievements fall within the same category of achievement as -. As described by the petitioner: 
. . . is an octogenarian with more than 60 years of experience as a head designer at the 
most prestigious companies in the industry . . . distinguished by Cambridge Who's Who directory for 
excellence in jewelry design [and] is currently a senior head designer at Harry Winston . . . ." - 
is similarly situated as an adjunct professor at FIT. 
The only letters from independent experts are those of 
 and the letter dated July 26, 2007 and 
authored by 
 a member of the Board of Directors of China Fashion Color Association and 
president of Zhejiang Fashion Color Association. 
 wrote that "[the petitioner's] unique talents as a 
designer are evidence both in terms of the intricate and complex nature of her designs . . . and her 
groundbreaking use of gems and precious metals to create clothing. This latter concept is an entirely new 
phenomenon in fashion and jewelry and I believe it will go down in the annals of history as an almost 
revolutionary trend." 
Although these letters are all complimentary of the petitioner's work and recognize its originality, none of 
these letters indicate that the petitioner's work has made a contribution of major significance to the jewelry 
design field. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has 
some meaning. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other 
designers nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of her 
work. The petitioner presented no evidence outside of these letters to demonstrate that she made a 
contribution of major significance to the design field and without support for the statements contained in 
letters, the petitioner cannot establish that she meets this criterion. 
The petitioner stated that she would have won a higher award instead of the 5~ place she won at the 
Swarovski competition as relayed to her by one of the judges if her designs were more mainstream and 
focused on jewelry as adornment instead of as pieces of clothing. She also stated that she heard fiom "[a] 
significant number of judges, competitors and spectators at the [2006 Swarovski competition] ceremony [that 
hers] was the most impressive design of the contest." As stated earlier, the 2006 Swarovski competition 
awards were given after this petition was filed so the results cannot be considered. In any case, the petitioner 
presented no evidence to support her assertions that the design submitted to that competition made an impact 
upon the field. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I. & N. Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
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. 5 204.5(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 exhibition of her work in 
conjunction with the various competitions that she entered. Although those exhibitions occurred at some of 
the industry's premier events, the petitioner presented no evidence showing that her designs were displayed in 
a manner consistent with national or international acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner refers us to the letter 
written by her counsel in response to the RFE for "details about the displays," but provides no evidence which 
demonstrates that the petitioner's work was showcased or exhibited in a manner consistent with this highly 
restrictive classification rather than being included as a part of the competition entries. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I. & N. Dec. 533, 534 
n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I. 
& N. Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In view of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has peflormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 8 
In order to establish the performance of a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The petitioner claims to be eligible 
under this criterion by virtue of her participation in the contests discussed under criterion one. Even if mere 
participation in a contest could be considered a significant contribution to the jewelry field as a whole, which 
it is not, each criterion under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct. The petitioner's argument that 
she made a significant contribution to the field by winning an award means that the awards considered under 
the first criterion would also qualify as a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation under this criterion. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding 
that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. 
Furthermore, participation in a contest is not a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. 
The petitioner presented no evidence to support her assertion that winning the organization's competition 
helps that organization achieve its goal. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I. & N. Dec. 
at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 1. & N. Dec. 190). The petitioner states that her 
design for Swarovski, an organization with a distinguished reputation, "promotes the sales of [the company's] 
crystal components." First, the petitioner presented no evidence to show that the sale of Swarovski crystals 
increased as a result of her performance in the competition. Second, the petitioner presented no evidence that 
her participation in the competition impacted the Swarovski company to a greater degree than any designer, 
sales associate, or other employee of the company. Similarly, the petitioner presented no evidence that her 
participation in the competitions sponsored by the MJSA, DIVA, or Perles de Tahiti increased sales of those 
companies' designs or products or in any other way impacted the companies to such an extent that her 
participation in the competition would be considered a leading or critical role for those companies. 
For all of these reasons, the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Review of the 
record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to 
have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top 
of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
her 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.