dismissed EB-1A Case: Wig Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
P 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVlCE CENTER Date: - 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
V 
pobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
-m,m 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administraltive 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 
§ 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. § 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 15, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a wig designer. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since April 2002. Given the length of time 
between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is reasonable to expect the 
petitioner to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had ample 
time to establish a reputation as a wig designer in this country. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted five photographs of what are alleged to be her wig designs. 
This evidence, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international 
acclaim, or that her achievements have been recognized in her field of expertise. On November 3, 2004, the 
director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. On appeal, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classlJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciylines orJields. 
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. In addition, it is clear fiom the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finaily, 
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 submits a certificate indicating that she is a member of "The World Association of Beauty 
Culture." The record, however, includes no evidence of the bylaws or official membership requirements for 
this organization. There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in this organization required 
outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of her admission to membership. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thej?eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submits evidence of her alleged authorship of an article in Fashion Wig entitled "How to 
design and make a wig: step one: how to make a wig." The record, however, contains no evidence showing 
that this article was actually published under the petitioner's name or evidence of its significant national or 
international distribution. Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's article is viewed 
throughout her field as significantly influential. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submits what are alleged to be four photographs of her wig designs at "professional 
exhibitions." There is no evidence identifying the names and dates of the exhibitions in which the petitioner's 
wigs were featured. Nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner's designs have been displayed at 
significant national or international fashion venues. Furthermore, there is no indication that participation in 
petitioner's exhibitions was a privilege extended to only top national or international wig designers. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualiFy as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
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 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. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa peltition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.