dismissed EB-1A Case: Jewelry Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 02 260 50548 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: q&W 9 %$/QF 
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. !j 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
u 
%Robert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 9 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. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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. tj 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 she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a jewelry designer. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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, international 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 qualifL as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, s*he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 3 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's selection as a candidate for inclusion in "Who's Who of 
Professionals" served to meet this criterion. The director requested evidence that inclusion is a nationally or 
internationally prestigious honor. The petitioner's response did not address this criterion and the director 
concluded that the evidence was insufficient. Counsel does not challenge that determination on appeal. We 
concur that inclusion as one of numerous other successful individuals in a frequently published directory such 
as "Who's Who of Professionals" is not a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzfzcation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner was invited to join the International Colored Gem Association 
(ICA). Counsel asserted that membership "was limited only to those individuals who have been recognized by 
their peers as amongst the most talented designers in the world." The petitioner submitted a letter from Hans- 
Georg Wild that states: 
I met [the petitioner] at the Hong Kong Jewelry and Gem Fair in 2000, and attended her private, 
invitation only showing at the Grand Hyatt Royal Suite. It was there that Mr. Hatta, the ICA 
(International Colored Gem Association) Ambassador to Taiwan and myself, also a member, 
invited [the petitioner] to join our selective institution. 
The director requested evidence of the ICA's membership requirements. The petitioner's response does not 
address this criterion. Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. We concur with the director that 
the assertion by Mr. Wild that the ICA is "selective," is insufficient to establish that it requires outstanding 
achievements of its members as judged by national or international experts. The record lacks the ICA's bylaws 
or other official information from the ICA documenting its membership requirements and selection process.2 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfzc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzfzcance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted reference letters fiom associates in the jewelry business. Desley Keys, Owner and 
Managing Director of Bali Artworks, who markets the petitioner's work, asserts that her contributions to the art 
of jewelry making are "inva1uab1e." Ms. Keys elaborates that the petitioner has "resurrected many of the gold 
carving techniques of Balinese artisans that would have been heretofore lost to the ages without royal 
patronage." Henry and Char Gray, General Managers of the Amandari Hotel in Bali, Ken Oschipok, Sales and 
2 
The ICA's website, www.gemstone.org, indicates that members must demonstrate operation of a business in 
colored gemstones for two years. Making a living in one's field is not an outstanding achievement indicative 
of national or international acclaim. 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 4 
Marketing Director of Dorite International, Debora Gardner, owner of suites and a shop in Bali, also assert that 
the petitioner's contribution to the industry is "invaluable." These letters all also refer to the petitioner's 
incorporation of "carving and granulation techniques inherent in ancient Egypt, India and classical Greece." 
While the signatures on the letters indicate that the authors affirm the content of the letters, the use of boilerplate 
language suggests that the language is not their own. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted more letters. Mara Hotung, 
the Asian Regional Marketing Manager for Van Cleef & Arpels, asserts that she previously worked for 
Sotheby's. Ms. Hotung characterizes the petitioner's pieces as "exquisite one of a kind creations," but does not 
identify the petitioner's alleged "significant contribution to the world of jewellery [sic] and jewllery [sic] 
making." This letter is not on Van Cleef & Arpels letterhead. Claudia Florian, the former Vice President and 
Director of Jewelry for Sotheby's Auctioneers, Hong Kong, states: 
Having spent many years working in this industry[,] I commend the crafting techniques used by 
[the petitioner.] Her designs are unique in the field of modern fine jewelry and offer clear 
distinction from those produced by her contemporaries. For these reasons, [the petitioner's] 
work constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field ofjewelry design compared to 
others in the field. 
Finally, Alan Friedman, designer and owner of a Beverly Hills manufacturer, distributor and retailer of 
extremely high-end natural colored diamond jewelry, asserts that he has recently become acquainted with the 
petitioner's work through a mutual client, that the petitioner's designs are "original and beautiful," and that "her 
contributions have been recognized by CNBC and CNN." 
The director concluded that the unique nature of the petitioner's jewelry could not be considered a contribution 
of niajor significance, but that the evidence must demonstrate an impact upon the field of jewelry design at the 
national or international level. The director noted the business relationship between the petitioner and most of 
the references and concluded that the record lacked evidence "showing that the petitioner's claimed 
contributions to the field have been widely recognized by other jewelry designers." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director should not have discounted the opinions of "individuals who work 
and have worked at the finest [auct?on] houses in the world." Counsel further asserts the letters from Mr. 
Friedman, Mr. Kazanjian, and Ms. Keys "clearly show that they consider [the petitioner's] work as having a 
demonstrable impact in the field ofjewelry design at a national or international level." 
While we will give appropriate weight to the opinion of experts, general assertions of cor~tributions to the field 
without any explanation of what those contributions are and examples of how they have impacted the field are 
not persuasive. We concur with the director that the record lacks evidence of the petitioner's impact on other 
jewelry designers and the field of jewelry design in gene~al. While other designers such as Mr. Friedman may 
admire the petitioner's work, they do not claim to be influenced by it. In fact, kIr. Friedman works with 
diamonds, a gem the petitioner avoids according to the published material submitted. 
The record lacks evidence fi-om jewelry designers who have decided to incorporate similar ancient Egyptian, 
Indian and Greek techniques based on the notoriety of the petitioner's work. The record also lacks testimony 
from jewelry design teachers who have incorporated these techniques into their jewelry design courses. Thus, 
while the petitioner's work may be unique and while she may' have revived ancient techniques appreciated by 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 5 
her clientele, the record lacks evidence that these techniques have impacted the field to such a degree as to 
constitute a contribution of major significance. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
According to the press releases submitted, the petitioner has displayed her work at the Asian Artworks Gallery 
and the Ambassador Suite at the Regent Hotel in Singapore. The Asian Artworks Gallery exhibition was by 
appointment only. Henry and Char Gray assert that they featured the petitioner's work in their Bali hotel and 
intend to do so at their Mexico hotel. Ms. Gardner also asserts that her shop in Bali sells the petitioner's 
jewelry. One of the petitioner's references asserts that the editor of Space Magazine, Singapore, decided to 
cover the petitioner's work after viewing it at a private exhibit at the Ritz Carlton royal suite. Ms. Florian 
indicates that Sotheby's highlighted the petitioner's work "as part of [its] contemporary designers category" for 
the 1998 Important Jewels Auction in Asia. While Ms. Florian asserts that Sotheby's "rarely chooses 
contemporary designs," her own letter indicates that the 1998 auction included an entire category for 
contemporary designers. 
The director acknowledged this evidence but noted that it is "an accepted business practice to display the work 
of several artistsldesigners as a means of attracting potential buyers." The director concluded that the record 
lacked evidence that the petitioner's work was featured more prominently than the work of other artists. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the director improperly applied to strict an interpretation of this criterion. Counsel 
further asserts that private viewings suggest the petitioner's work was featured more prominently. 
We do not find that the petitioner must demonstrate that her work was featured more prominently to meet this 
criterion if the exhibit itself is indicative of national or international acclaim. While we withdraw that 
determination by the director, we concur that any jewelry designer, in order to make a living in the field, must 
display her work for sale. The petitioner's work is handcrafted and the time-consuming labor alone necessitates 
a high price. Thus, the petitioner must necessarily display her work at locations where those with the means to 
purchase her work will see it. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires a 
display at an artistic showcase or exhibition. A business arrangement to display and sell one's work at a luxury 
resort is not the type of juried approval to display one's work in an exclusive artistic showcase or exhibition 
contemplated by the regulation. Specifically, the former represents an ability to work in the field while the latter 
is indicative of national or international acclaim. The record contains insufficient information about the 
Sotheby's auction, such as the number of other contemporary jewelry designers included in the category and the 
selection process for those designers. Finally, the claims that the petitioner's jewelry has appeared in films 
cannot serve to meet this criterion. Jewelry is designed to be worn, not every piece of jewelry that is worn in a 
film is on display in an artistic showcase or exhibition designed to showcase jewelry. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner earned $250,000 in 2001. The assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BLA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503,506 (BIA 1980). 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 6 
The published articles submitted indicate that the petitioner's work is priced at between 7,000 and 500,000 
Hong Kong dollars: which amounts to between $897 and $66,667 according to publicly available exchange 
rates for July 2000.~ Jon Jacobs, President of Golden Shadow Pictures, asserts that while the petitioner was in 
''training" in 1988, he commissioned jewelry from her for three of his movies, but does not provide the cost. He 
further asserts that he is "personally aware" that the petitioner sold work priced at $50,000 to Jerry Speyer and 
$20,000 "to the Taubmans of Sotheby's." The letters from Ms. Florian and Ms. Hotung, the only individuals 
who claim to have worked at Sotheby's, do not indicate whether the petitioner's items sold at the Sotheby's 
auction and, if so, the amount paid. 
Counsel asserted that the prevailing wage for Level 2 jewelry designers in Los Angeles is $24,086. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that her income compares with the income of the most experienced and acclaimed 
in the field nationally. The evidence submitted reflects that the 9oth percentile for jewelers and precious stone 
and metal workers is $44,120. 
The director concluded that the evidence did not compare the petitioner's income with independent designers 
who own their own business outside the United States. More significantly, the director stated, "the record 
contains no evidence of the actual prices paid for any of the petitioner's work." On appeal, counsel asserts that 
the petitioner's income should be compared to her U.S. counterparts. Counsel does not address the director's 
concern that the record lacks receipts, tax returns, or other evidence establishing her claimed income in 2001 or 
any other year. 
The petitioner's income should be compared with other top jewelry designers. Mr. Friedman, who characterizes 
his business as similar to the petitioner's, does not attest to his own income. Regardless, we concur with the 
director's concern that the record lacks evidence of the petitioner's income. The absence of evidence of the 
petitioner's income from her jewelry design precludes any analysis of whether the petitioner can meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box offie receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the use of her jewelry in films and the 
prominent individuals who have purchased her work. The director questioned whether this evidence related to 
commercial success in the performing arts and counsel no longer claims that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
We concur that this criterion specifically relates to performing artists. Moreover, even if we were to consider 
evidence of a visual artist's commercial success, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires receipts. 
As stated above, the record contains no receipts for the purchase of the petitioner's work. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
3 Counsel implies that these amounts are in U.S. dollars but one article specifies that the prices are in Hong 
Kong dollars and the other article appears in a Hong Kong paper. 
4 The exchange rate was obtained at www.oanda.com. 
WAC 02 260 50548 
Page 7 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a jewelry 
designer 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 indicates that the petitioner shows 
talent as a jewelry designer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field. 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.