sustained EB-1A Case: Interior Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10994402 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an interior designer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that she intends to continue working 
in the area of claimed extraordinary ability. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 design director at the I I Branch otj 
I I She intends to open a d1.,..e_s~ig-n-st_u_d~i-o~in--rl -----"l--____J 
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 Petitioner claims to have met four criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of the evidentiary criteria, numbered (viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the other three claimed evidentiary criteria. 
We will not disturb the Director's conclusion regarding criterion (viii). After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner meets two additional criteria, numbered (i) and 
(iii), for the reasons explained below. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner's initial submission included information about various prizes, but the evidence was 
ambiguous as to whether or not she had actually received those prizes. The Petitioner's response to a 
request for evidence included more definitive documentation of her receipt of the prizes. The Director 
2 
discounted the awards, stating that they "appear to have local sponsors." The Petitioner has shown that, 
while some events are named for a particular locality, their reputation is broader. The Petitioner did not 
receive the highest-level prizes available at those events (for instance, her works were named "Excellent" 
rather than "Best"), but the Petitioner has satisfactorily established the national recognition of her prizes. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
Sina Home published two interviews with the Petitioner, discussing her work. (Other media coverage in 
the record is less persuasive.) The Director noted that the publications were "posted to web portals," and 
stated: "Documents from web portals, domains, blogs, and social media are not accepted because there 
are no assurances about the reliability of content from these open, user-edited sites." 
The Director is correct to observe that sites hosting publicly editable, user-generated content lack indicia 
ofreliability and warrant very limited probative weight in immigration proceedings. Matter of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015), citing Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F .3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008); see also 
Bing Shun Liv. Holder, 400 Fed.Appx. 854, 857-58 (5th Cir. 2010). These holdings, however, do not 
uniformly discredit all online media, and the record does not indicate that Sina Home is an open, user­
edited site comparable to Wikipedia or Baidu Baike. 
The Director also stated: "While it is true that these pages are widely available, the record does not show 
that these articles are widely read." The printouts in the record, however, actually provide readership 
information with greater precision than is possible for print articles. (A publisher can document the 
number of copies sold of a given newspaper or magazine, but cannot show how many purchasers actually 
read any one specific article.) 
The Sina Home articles include videos of the interviews with the Petitioner. The printouts show high 
view counts, which are particularly significant because they do not merely represent the website's overall 
traffic; they pertain to the specific videos shown. The evidence supports the conclusion that Sina Home 
qualifies as major media. 
The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Petitioner submits letters from several prominent interior designers, who attest to the Petitioner's 
accomplishments and reputation within her field. These individuals, however, do not establish the major 
significance of specific, original contributions that the Petitioner has made. Asserting that her work has 
won awards does not suffice in this regard; awards fall under a separate category, already discussed. The 
awarding of a prize does not imply that the prize-winning work is an original contribution of major 
significance; rather, it shows that the work is superior to other works entered into the same competition. 
3 
General praise for the Petitioner's talent and skill does not identify specific contributions or establish the 
significance of those contributions. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. Nevertheless, she has satisfied three others, as discussed 
above. Therefore, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the record as a whole supports a 
determination of eligibility. 
The Petitioner has served as a leading designer at a major design firm. Her villa design for~I --~ 
~----~I is one of several projects that won awards and attracted significant media attention in 
her field. The record demonstrates not only consistent success, but prominence, through high-profile 
projects and an important role with a nationally recognized design company. Taken as a whole, the 
evidence spanning several years indicates that the Petitioner has achieved not only success, but 
prominence, in her field of endeavor. 
C. Continued Work in the Field 
The Petitioner plans to invest $80,000 to establish a design studio inl land serve as its 
chief designer. The Petitioner explains why she chose the location, provides details about how the 
studio would operate, and explains how her strengths would appeal to her target clientele. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated: "the record does not show the feasibility of opening such 
a studio with the amount of cash cited [in] the letter. The record does not show these fonds are 
available as of the priority date of the petition." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires clear evidence that the Petitioner is coming to the 
United States to continue to work in the area of expertise. Further, the regulation indicates that the 
Petitioner can meet this requirement with "a statement ... detailing plans on how he or she intends to 
continue his or her work in the United States." The Director did not sufficiently explain why the 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
Petitioner's statement does not satisfy this requirement. With respect to the availability of funds, 
businesses routinely borrow start-up funds; there is no implicit requirement that the Petitioner had to 
have all necessary cash in hand before she filed the petition. The record does not give cause to doubt 
the Petitioner's intention to continue working as an interior designer, and her past work as a high­
ranking designer at a major firm indicates that the Petitioner has the necessary knowledge and 
experience to run a studio as she plans to do. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has also demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in her field 
and submitted extensive documentation of her achievements. Lastly, the Petitioner has shown that she 
intends to continue working in the United States in his area of expertise and that her entry will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. She therefore qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5