dismissed EB-1A Case: Wedding And Event Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11969687 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive in the specialty of wedding and event planning, seeks classification 
as an alien 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 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 met the initial evidentiary requirements of the classification through 
receiving a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 in 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 criteria 
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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder and CEO ofl I ( dba 
I L a luxury weddinn and event planning company b;sed in I I, Brazil. The evidence 
shows that she has co-owned I since 2015, and been engaged in the event planning industry 
for several years prior. She states that she intends to continue working in this industry in the United 
States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the seven 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) that she claimed to in her initial filing and in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director imposed novel evidentiary requirements in his analysis of the evidence, and that she meets 
all seven of the criteria she previously claimed. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we 
find that she does not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner bases her claim to this criterion on her, andl t, membership in the Brazilian 
Association of Social Events, known as ABRAFEST A. Although the evidence does not show when 
she first became a member of this association, copies of meeting minutes confirm that the Petitioner 
served as the ' from 2013 to 2015. 
2 
Several pieces of evidence were submitted regarding this association's membership requirements, 
including an undated letter titled "Membership Application Approval" and signed b~ I 
~---------~I of ABRAFESTA. This document states that "Any company in the 
segment of parties and events can apply for an ABRAFESTA membership," and that the association's 
board members evaluate a candidate and determine approval by a majority vote. It also states under 
the heading of "analysis" simply that the board "position[ s] itself positively or negatively in relation 
to the membership," but provides no farther criteria used in this analysis. Further, it indicates that 
board members are "entrepreneurs from the events segment, from reputable companies with over 10 
years in the market." 
A second letter froml I this one dated January 27, 2020, states that associate members of the 
association must be companies or individuals in the events industry, be clear of tax and debt liabilities, 
submit three professional references, and be approved by a simple majority of the executive board. In 
addition, under a section entitled "ABRAFESTA Requires Outstanding Achievements of Their 
Members - Especially for Those Appointed as Members of its Executive Board," he writes that 
executive board membership requires that the candidate must have "a highly recognized and respected 
company in the industry" and "more than ten (10) years of experience in the industry," which appears 
to represent a different standard than that stated in his other letter. Also, a document described as 
ABRAFESTA's articles of association indicates in Article 13 that the executive board is elected by 
the shareholder's meeting, with all permanent members of the association having voting rights. 
Regarding the associate membership of the Petitioner and her company, on appeal she focuses onD 
I I list of the executive board members who reviewed her application. The list indicates that most 
own their own companies, which is also shown by the attached resumes. Although this evidence 
shows that they are all experienced business owners in the events industry, it does not establish that 
they are nationally or internationally recognized. More importantly, in asserting on appeal that 
ABRAFESTA does require outstanding achievements of its members, the Petitioner highlights the 
requirement that they be approved by a majority of the executive board. However, she does not explain 
how being approved, an action taken by others, can be considered as a member's outstanding 
achievement, nor does she assert that any of the other requirements for membership in the association 
rise to the requisite level. 
Turning to the Petitioner's membership on the association's executive board, we first note that we do 
not generally consider requirements consisting of a minimum level of education or experience in a 
field to be outstanding achievements. Such requirements reflect qualifications for employment in a 
particular job or industry and longevity, respectively, and therefore do not represent achievements 
which stand out from those of others in the field. Therefore, the requirement of 10 years of experience 
for ABRAFESTA's executive board members (whether as an individual or as an entrepreneur with a 
company) does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
In addition, whether the standard is that the executive member own a "reputable" company that has 
been in the events business for at least ten years, or that that company is "highly recognized and 
respected," Article 13 of ABRAFESTA's articles of association states that the judges applying that 
standard are the association's members, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that all members are 
nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
3 
As neither the Petitioner's membership in ABRAFESTA, nor her selection to that organization's 
executive board, have been shown to require outstanding achievements, we find that she does not meet 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien'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) 
As noted above, the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner has served on the executive board of 
ABRAFESTA, and that it is executive board members who vote to determine whether to accept new 
members. The requirements for membership in the association were noted in the section of1 I 
dated letter pertaining to that issue, as discussed above. Neither his undated letter, nor the association's 
articles, elaborate further on the requirements for membershil in ABRAFESTA. However, in another 
section of his dated letter pertaining to this criterion,! states that in deciding whether to accept 
a member, board members "discuss[ing] and judge[ing] the relevance and quality of the services of 
the candidate." However, the articles of the association and his two letters indicate that the application 
that is reviewed consists of a registration form, documents showing the establishment of an event 
planning business, a tax and debt clearance certificate, and three professional reference letters. There 
is no indication that the executive board members observe the work of the candidates first-hand in 
making the membership decision. Rather, the evidence shows that they rely upon the judgement of 
others as contained in the application package. Therefore, the Petitioner's service on ABRAFESTA's 
executive board does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 1 
The Petitioner also asserts her work as a lecturer in the MBA program o±1 I University 
I rl involved judging the work of others in her field. In a reference letter, the dean and founder of 
I . . I, writes that in this role, the Petitioner "lectures on the luxury 
events market and how to get into the business," and "is responsible for preparing and drafting the 
evaluation process and reports on her students based on their performance." However, the letter does 
not provide detail regarding the Petitioner's evaluation of the students' work in the field, as opposed 
to academic study. While the Petitioner argues on appeal that the students in this program are already 
professionals in the field, the record does not include evidence showing that she judged the 
performance of their work in the event planning industry. Rather, she submitted an email in which 
she presented two questions to be added to a written exam, demonstrating that she took part in judging 
the students' academic performance. 
Because the evidence does not establish that she judged the work of others in her field, we agree with 
the Director and find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
1 The Petitioner asserts that because the Director did not elaborate on this portion of her claim under this criterion, she 
effectively meets this criterion. However, we note that the Director ultimately found that she did not meet this criterion, 
and after reviewing the evidence in the record we agree with this finding. 
4 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. For example, a petitioner may show that the original contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Petitioner initially based her claim to this criterion upon her contribution to ABRAFESTA's Code 
of Conduct. In support of this claim, she submitted copies of emails from the association, the Code of 
Conduct itself: and reference letters. This evidence indicates that she was one of 26 professionals who 
formed a committee to review and discuss an existing version of this document, and after a meeting 
on June 14, 2010, "approved minor amendments" to the document. Regarding her work on this 
committee,....._ ________ ....,. who describes herself as a photographer and former event planner, 
writes that the Petitioner "was a pivotal part in the creation, development and promotion of 
ABRAFESTA' s Code of Conduct," but provides no detail about the Petitioner's contributions to this 
document or the basis of her knowledge of these contributions. I I in another undated letter, 
states that the association "began codifying a practice manual," and that he observed the Petitioner's 
"tenacity and stamina," but also does not provide detail about her role in developing or amending the 
Code of Conduct. Therefore, this evidence is not sufficient to show that the Petitioner made an original 
contribution to her field through her participation on this committee. 
In her response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also presented additional evidence and asserted 
that articles that she had written about processes, procedures and methods in the event planning 
industry were registered in the Brazilian National Library, "which assists other professionals in 
improving their services." The evidence submitted in support of this assertion includes a certificate 
ofregistration from the National Library Foundation concerning a book (not several, as the Petitioner 
asserts) authored by the Petitioner: I I We note that the 
certificate states that the book has not been published. In addition, another document titled "Copyright 
Assignment" lists 59 "texts" authored by the Petitioner which she assigned to the website I I I t but does not mention whether these were also registered with the national library. 
Further, the previously discussed letter froml I repeats the assertion that several of the 
Petitioner's articles and guides were registered in the national library, and states that the resulting 
availability of these articles "has been a major benchmark for the industry, since other professionals 
are able to have access to industry standards, techniques and methods ... " However, the availability 
of articles, guides or books authored by the Petitioner and pertaining to the event planning industry, 
whether registered with the Brazilian National Library or posted on a website, does not establish that 
these materials have had a widespread impact on the industry or that any processes, procedures or 
methods contained within have been widely implemented. I ldoes not state that her previous 
event planning career was impacted by the availability of these writings, and does not provide 
specificity regarding the impact they may have had on others in the industry. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that her contribution to the bookl ~ was an original 
contribution to her field, but the record includes little evidence regarding either the book or the extent 
of any contribution to the event planning industry. A link to a webpage in the Petitioner's initial brief 
5 
shows that she is one of four individuals listed under "original idea" on the cover of the book, while a 
fifth person is listed as the author. I I another of the individuals listed on the cover, states that 
the book "forever changed the way the general public perceived the event planning industry," and 
states that a company called I acquired the copyright to produce a film based upon 
the book. However, while this evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner contributed to this original 
work, the record lacks evidence to support! I's statements regarding any success the book may 
have had or its impact upon the event planning industry. 
Based upon our review of the evidence above, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Petitioner submitted copies of several articles authored by her in support of this criterion. These 
articles generally presented tips for conducting wedding and debutant receptions, and were published 
in the magazines Go 'Where Noiva, Noivas & Noivos, and Debutantes. In his decision, the Director 
noted that scholarly articles are generally written for learned persons in the field, which includes all 
persons having profound knowledge of a field. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that these articles 
were written for learned individuals in her field, event planning, and were published in magazines 
targeted not towards the general public but "for a niche audience in specialized wedding and event 
planning ... " However, after review we find that the evidence does not support this assertion. 
For example, the website of the Go'Where publishing house states that the mission of its magazines 
are to offer content "to a unique audience that knows how to enjoy the bright side oflife." In addition, 
another page of this website states that the one of the main objectives of the publisher's customized 
magazines is "to build a strong connection with customers, suppliers, and society at large." This 
website does not indicate that the magazines are targeted only towards professionals in the "luxury, 
gastronomy and lifestyle market," but also to consumers. 
Similarly, the website for the magazine Noivas & Noivos states that it "is intended primarily for the 
female audience." And the "letter to the reader" in the magazine Guia Amais Noivas, for which the 
Petitioner also wrote an article, states that "[O]ur goal is to help the lovebirds in this important stage 
of their lives ... " 
As the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's articles are written for learned persons in the 
field of event planning, we conclude that she does not meet this criterion. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFAf) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
This criterion requires evidence that a petitioner's work was displayed, and that that display occurred 
within an exhibition or showcase that was artistic in nature. In his decision, the Director considered 
the evidence regarding the Petitioner's appearance on the television showl I 
I ~ as well as her role as founder and partner forl I but found that this criterion 
does not apply to actors and executives. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the regulation does not 
include this restriction, and that it is her body of work as an event planner that is on display in the 
television show and in marriage celebrations she has organized, not her acting or business skills. 
We agree that the plain language of this criterion does not limit the type of work being displayed, but 
requires that it be that of the petitioner and in his or her field. Here, regarding private marriage 
receptions that she has organized, the Petitioner has not established that it is her work that is being 
displayed. The website of I lstates that the company's role is "idealization, organization, 
planning, integrating each hired service, supplier, up to the coordination of the whole event." From 
the viewpoint of the attendees, it is the work of those suppliers (DJs, florists, chefs, etc.) that is 
displayed, not that of the Petitioner. In addition, she has not demonstrated that a marriage ceremony 
and reception is an artistic exhibition or showcase, as opposed to a religious or civil ceremony and 
celebration. 
Turning to the Petitioner's work for the television show, the evidence does demonstrate that it is her 
work as an event planner that is being displayed. Specifically, the press release from thel I I I television channel indicates that the show focuses on the work of the Petitioner and 
her partner "done on the final stretch of the organization of a wedding." However, the Petitioner has 
not shown that this television show is an artistic exhibition or display, rather than one done for 
entertainment and commercial purposes. 
As the Petitioner has not established that her work as an event planner has been displayed in artistic 
exhibitions or showcases, we conclude that she does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to awards, published material, and 
original contributions. Although she claims eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to 
published media about her at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and leading or critical role at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(3)(3)(viii), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot 
fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve 
these issues. 3 Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim 
and recognition required for the classification sought. 
3 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). 
7 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. 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 that the significance of her 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
8