remanded EB-1A Case: Hair Styling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21166441 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 27, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a hair stylist, 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 evidence requirements of this classification by meeting three 
of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets 
four criteria in addition to the two criteria that the Director concluded she met. 
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 withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for a new decision consistent with the following analysis . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 petitioner 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 dete1mination); 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 a hair stylist who opened her own studio in 2005. The evidence shows that she has 
received several awards in national stylist competitions, and has styled the hair of several celebrities 
in her nativel I She states that upon relocating to the United States she plans to open a new 
salon inl I 
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). TheDirectorfoundthatthePetitionermettwo of the evidentiarycriteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to published materials about her and her participation as a 
judge of the work of others in her field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets four 
additional criteria. Afterreviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that she has met the initial 
evidence requirement for this classification by meeting three criteria, and will therefore remand the 
matter to the Director to conduct a final merits analysis. 
Published material 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted several interviews and articles about her and her work as a stylist which were 
mainly published on the websites ofl lnews media. In addition, the record includes evidence 
which demonstrates that some of those websites are comparatively highly visited to the extent that 
they may be considered to be major media. We therefore agree with the Director that this criterion 
has been met. 
2 
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 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The record shows that the Petitioner served as a judge for the _____ Championship in 
Hairdressing, Decorative Cosmetics and Nail Art in 2009. As such, we agree with the Director's 
conclusion that this evidence establishes that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that their work in the field was displayed at an 
exhibition or showcase, and that the exhibition or showcase was artistic in nature. The Director noted 
three general categories of evidence submitted by the Petitioner in support of this criterion: photos 
from fashion shows, credits from video productions, and articles about competitions. While he did 
not dispute that the Petitioner's work was displayed in music videos, fashion shows, and beauty 
competitions, he concluded that the evidence did not establish that any of these were artistic 
exhibitions or showcases versus events conducted for marketing or competitive purposes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on several competitions and fashion shows in which hairstyles she 
created were displayed, and refers to previously submitted evidence which include photographs taken 
at two competitions in which she competed in 2006 and 2009. Those photographs show that as part 
of the competitions, models displayed the hairstyles, makeup and fingernails created by the stylist 
competitors in a runway show attended by spectators. While the overall exhibitions within which the 
competitions take place have a commercial component, the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the 
competitions were primarily exhibitions of the artistic skills of the competing stylists. Accordingly, 
we withdraw the Director's decision regarding this criterion and conclude that the evidence shows that 
the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner meets at least one criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) in 
addition to the two which the Director determined that she met, she has met the initial evidence 
requirement for the requested classification. We therefore need not consider whether she also meets 
additional criteria. Rather, the totality of the evidence, including evidence not discussed by the 
Director in his decision or herein, must be analyzed in a final merits determination to assess whether 
it shows that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim in the field of hair sty ling 
and is one of the small percentage of stylists at the top of that field. As the Director's decision did not 
include a final merits determination, we remand this matter for him to consider the entirety of the 
record and determine whether the Petitioner has established her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
3 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn and the matter remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4