sustained EB-1A Case: Graphic And Fashion Design

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 7 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
Thank you, 
¥-(czr___ 
r-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which 
makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 petitioner's experience includes graphic and fashion design. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets 
at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement with new documentary evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, we find that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that satisfies at least 
three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
evidence in the aggregate is consistent with national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner 
has demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of 
endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). Accordingly, we will sustain the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
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. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate the petitioner's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in the field through evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper 
application of Kazarian), ajf'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately 
applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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 class?fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner submitted an article titled, ' that 
appeared on the website of and was about the petitioner, relating to her work in 
the field. The director, however, noted that the petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that 
this website qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits circulation and distribution statistics demonstrating that the publication is major 
media. Therefore, the petitioner has established that the evidence meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion based on two letters 
that discuss the display of the petitioner's work at two events in 2004. The record contains letters 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims to 
meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
supported by fliers for curated events listing the petitioner as an artist. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. A critical role is evident from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities? Initially, the petitioner asserted that she provides 
web design and 
administrative services for "prominent businesses and charitable organizations," including 
The petitioner next explained that she has been 
"a very valuable contributor and collaborator" for several entities. She submitted evidence relating to 
16 entities. In the request for evidence (RFE), the director concluded that the letters of support 
confirmed the petitioner's talent, but did not establish her leading or critical role. In response, the 
petitioner focused on her work for the 
and The director considered the new evidence relating to 
and concluded that it did not establish that the petitioner's role was leading or critical for 
that company. On appeal, the petitioner relies on her work for the same three companies and submits an 
additional letter dated January 28, 2015, from Chief Executive Officer of 
the parent company of 
The petitioner submitted a letter in the initial filing from Creative Director at 
With respect to the petitioner's work in graphic design, indicates that, since he 
hired the petitioner the previous year, she cooperated well with the marketing department and carefully 
researched online marketing trends to create a sophisticated and user-friendly website. He also 
indicates the petitioner's design has worked to upscale the brand image value and has attracted a larger 
number of individual and organizational clients who have accessed the website internationally in the 
past five years. 
Within the RFE response, the petitioner provided a November 7, 2014letter from in which 
he indicated that the petitioner created a website for which has resulted in an improvement 
of their brand image, and a substantial increase in traffic to their website over recent years. In addition 
to her graphic design duties, asserts the petitioner performed in a critical role in the 
company's design department and that she is responsible for the company ' s substantial rise in the 
industry and recognition of the label, which enabled the company to sign a celebrity 
spokesperson in 2012 and top runway fashion model in 2014. supports this assertion by 
stating: "Based on her innovations that boosted our Brand image, she renewed our website and 
subsequently our online presence and access rates." also discusses the petitioner's 
2 While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."2 Dictionaries are not of themselves 
evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 
306 (1893). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
recrmtmg, marketing, and managing responsibilities. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has 
submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, 
evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. FINAL MERITS DETERMINATION 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is a final merits determination that considers 
all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise ." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner's work has appeared at curated events in Japan. She has been covered in major media 
in Japan, discussing her work in New York. She has performed in a leading or critical role for a 
major denim designer with an international reputation, contributing to their fashions, website, 
marketing and management. Other denim manufacturers have copied her pocket embroidery 
designs. Considered in the aggregate, as well as other evidence of record, the petitioner has 
established her national or international acclaim by a preponderance of the evidence . 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.