dismissed EB-1A Case: Jewelry Design

-------------
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-D-R-G-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: . FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jewelry designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. This first preference 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied 
only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's subsequent appeal, also finding that she had met only one of the evidentiary criteria. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
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). A petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she 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 submits qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, we will then determine whether the totality of 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. 1 
1 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding 
that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true"). 
J 
Matter of L-D-R-G-C-
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
IL ANALYSIS 
In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires that the 
motion must be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable 
decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and 
status or result of the proceeding." Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( 4) requires 
that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." In this case, the 
Petitioner did not submit a statement indicating whether the validity of the decision has been, or is, 
subject of any judicial proceeding. 
In addition, the Petitioner requests that she be allowed an opportunity to present an oral argument 
"because this matter presents an issue of particular significance regarding the types of evidence that 
should be considered when applying 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to determine eligibility." The regulation 
at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(b) allows for oral argument in support of an appeal, but there is no provision in 
the regulations permitting oral argument on motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). Further, the requesting 
party must explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Here, the Petitioner has not identified 
any unique factors or issues of law to be resolved that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. 
We find the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. We 
have sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(b). For these reasons, we will not grant the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 
The Petitioner indicates that she "hopes within 30 days of this submission to have been able to 
acquire additional" documentation. As of the date of this decision, the Petitioner has not submitted 
any additional evidence, and the record of proceedings is considered complete. Regardless, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) allows for limited circumstances in which a petitioner can 
supplement an already-submitted appeal. This regulation, however, applies only to appeals, and not 
to motions to reopen or reconsider. There is no analogous regulation which allows a petitioner to 
submit new evidence in furth~rance of a previously-filed motion. 
Moreover, the instant motion does not otherwise meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. A 
motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual 
record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The motion must demonstrate that the prior decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time. !d. It must state the reasons for reconsideration and cite 
any pertinent precedent to establish that the original decision was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy. !d. As discussed below, the Petitioner makes the same arguments on motion as she 
did on appeal and does not show that our prior decision was based on an improper application of law 
or policy. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-D-R-G-C-
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we erred in finding that she did not meet the awards criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and 
the original contributions criterion under 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Specifically, the Petitioner 
states that we did not consider "comparable types [of] evidence which demonstrate extraordinary 
ability in the field of jewelry design , and the testimony from successful and prominent 
businessmen .. .. " 
/ 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) provides that "[i]f the above standards do not readily apply 
to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility. " General assertions that the criteria described in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) do not 
readily apply to an occupation are not probative . A petitioner should demonstrate why the criteri a at 
8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the 
specific objective 
evidence required under the relevant provisions. 
In our evaluation of the awards criterion , we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
"Recognition Award" from , a non-profit charitable organization in Florida , is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. In addition, although the 
Petitioner requested other evidence to be considered as comparable evidence under this regulatory 
criterion, we found that she did not demonstrate that the awards criterion did not readily apply to her 
occupation, and did not ~how that her documentation was comparable to the awards criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . Specifically, the Petitioner maintained her evidence should be found 
comparable based , in part , on her jewelry's selection to be worn on air by television hosts and on the 
commissions she has received to design custom pieces for celebrities and renowned boutiques . 
On motion , the Petitioner contends that she should be permitted to demonstrate extraordinary ability 
through her adornment of celebrities , success ful businessmen , and politicians and she submits 
several letters, such as from actress; 
in the People's Republic of China; and television anchor for and 
Although they attest to wearing her jewelry , the Petitioner does not offer evidence on motion 
establishing . the inapplicability of the awards criterion to her occupation as a jewelry designer. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown how' the acts of other individual s wearing her jewelry is 
comparable to receiving nationally or internationall y recognized awards or prizes for excellence in 
the field. 
Regarding the published material criterion , we analyzed the Petitioner ' s documentary evidence and 
found that her submission of photographs of public figures and celebrities wearing her jewelry did 
not meet the plain language of this criterion requiring "published material about the alien" including 
"the title, date, and author of the material.;' Further , we determined that even if we considered the 
photographs as comparable evidence to this criterion , the Petitioner did not show that published 
material does not readily apply to jewelry designers or how photographs of other individuals with 
her jewelry compare to published material about her in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-D-R-G-C-
The Petitioner states on motion that she is unable to include the date and author pf the material 
because they are too difficult to locate, and we should consider the totality of the publications when 
determining whether the published material criterion has been met. In addition, the Petitioner claims 
that "the adornment in addition to the publication in magazines with wide print and online 
circulation should be recognized as comparable evidence satisfying the publication in major media 
criterion." Further, the Petitioner submits a letter from director of 
magazine, who indicates that the Petitioner placed her jewelry at the disposal of the magazine from 
2001 to 2005. 
As discussed in our previous decision, photographs of individuals wearing ner jewelry do not meet 
this criterion as they do not represent published material about the Petitioner relating to her work, 
including the title and author of the material, consistent with the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner did not offer evidence establishing that the published material 
criterion does not readily apply to her occupation as a jewelry designer or that the submitted 
photographs are comparable to published material about her. 
In our analysis of the original contributions criterion, we evaluated the Petitioner's reference letters, 
including letters of varying probative value, and found that they did not demonstrate her original 
contributions of major significance in the field. On motion, the Petitioner generally objects to our 
findings without supporting the record or showing how her contributions are of major significance. 
For instance, }he Petitioner states that she is in "potential contractual relationships with ... luxury 
chain stores." A petitioner 
cannot establish eligibility under this criterion based on the expectation 
of future significance. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'il Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner 
did not show that her previous contractual relationships impacted or influenced the field in a 
significant manner. 
On motion, the Petitioner provides additional recommendation letters praising her talent as a jewelry 
designer. The letters, however, do not indicate that she has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field consistent with the plain language of the regulatory criterion. As indicated 
in our previous decision, the submission of letters complimenting the Petitioner's jewelry without 
showing its impact or influence on the field in a significant manner is insufficient to meet this 
criterion. The Petitioner has not established that she has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The record of proceedings reflects that, in our prior decision, we thoroughly analyzed the 
Petitioner's documentation and articulated the reasons why her evidence, including comparable 
evidence, did not satisfy the evidentiary criteria. In the instant motion, the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate that our prior decision was incorrect based on the record at the time, nor does she show 
that we improperly applied any law, regulation, or precedent. Again, in filing a motion to 
reconsider, a petitioner must show that we erred by incorrectly applying law or policy and be 
supported by pertinent legal materials rather than a request to reevaluate documentation or make the 
4 
r----------------------~ ------
Matter of L-D-R-G-C-
same arguments. Because the Petitioner did not satisfy the filing requirements, we will deny the 
motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly applied law or USCIS policy in our prior 
decision. The Petitioner has not met her burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of L-D-R-G-C-, ID# 134885 (AAO Jan. 30, 2017) 
5