dismissed O-1B Case: Architectural And Interior Design

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 2 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigr ation Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Th:ky~o Vu, - -~· 
~~··~~- - / . ' . 
~ ~ . ' i\ ' 
Ron R.1'ts ·berg . __ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
director subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke, and upon review of the petitioner's response, revoked 
approval of the petition. The director granted the petitioner's subsequent motion to re-open and affirmed the 
revocation of the petition approval. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, an architectural and interior design firm, filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the 
beneficiary pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(0), as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
in the position of designer for a period of three years. 
The director approved the petition on September 5, 2008, granting the beneficiary 0-1 classification for the 
requested three-year period. On April 30, 2009, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke, and, after review 
the petitioner's rebuttal evidence, revoked the approval of the petition on June 22, 2009, concluding that the 
petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the beneficiary "has met the requirements for 0-lA classification." 
The director granted the petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen, and affirmed his decision to revoke the 
approval, noting that the petitioner submitted evidence to satisfy only one of the six evidentiary criteria applicable 
to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director applied an 
incorrect standard of law, failed to consider all relevant and probative evidence, and failed to clearly and 
sufficiently provide the petitioner with adequate notice of specific deficiencies in the evidence. Counsel 
asserts that evidence submitted with the original petition in addition to the evidence submitted in response to 
the notice of intent to revoke, clearly establishes that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification fo a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, visual 
arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Extraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, 
or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. To qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as being prominent in his 
or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national 
or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award, an 
Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, 
publications, contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications; 
(3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, 
box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
publications; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in 
the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form 
which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements; or 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence; or 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... of the alien shall specifically describe the alien's 
recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the 
affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (August 15, 
1994). 
Therefore, in determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-step 
approach wherein we will first look to see whether the petitioner has submitted evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or, in the alternative, evidence to satisfy at least three of the six 
regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). If the petitioner submits evidence to satisfy the plain 
language of the requisite number of criteria, then the AAO will determine whether the quantity and quality of the 
evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation," and the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as one who is "renowned, leading or well-known in the field of arts." 
IT. Revocation of Petition Approval 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO will address counsel's claim that the director failed to provide the petitioner 
with adequate notice of the specific evidentiary deficiencies that led to the issuance of the notice of intent to 
revoke. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(i)(B) provides that the director may revoke a petition approval at any 
time, even after the validity of the petition has expired. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(iii) sets forth the 
grounds for revocation on notice: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The Director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent to 
revoke the petition in relevant part if it is determined that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity specified in 
the petition; 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and correct; 
(3) The petitioner violated the terms or conditions of the approved petition; 
(4) The petitioner violated the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act or 
paragraph ( o) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (o) of this section or involved gross 
error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed statement of 
the grounds for revocation and the time period allowed for the petitioner's rebuttal. The 
petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 days of the date of the notice. The 
Director shall consider all relevant evidence presented in deciding whether to revoke the 
petition. 
The director initially approved the petition on September 5, 2008. The director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke on April 30, 2009, but did not cite to the specific grounds for revocation. The director stated: 
It has now come to the attention of USCIS that the beneficiary is not eligible for this 
classification because she has not demonstrated any national or international acclaim. 
Further, the petitioner has not submitted an adequate peer review letter in behalf of the 
beneficiary. 
Upon review, the director revoked the approval primarily on the basis of a finding that the approval of the 
petition involved gross error, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(8)(iii)(A)(5). 
The term "gross error" is not defined by the regulations or statute. Furthermore, although the term has a 
juristic ring to it, "gross error" is not a commonly used legal term and has no basis in jurisprudence. See 
Black's Law Dictionary 562, 710 (7th Ed. 1999)(defining the types of legal "error" and legal terms using 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
"gross" without citing "gross error"). The word "gross" is commonly defined first as "unmitigated in any 
way: UTTER," as in "gross negligence." Webster's II New College Dictionary 491 (2001). 
As the term "gross error" was created by regulation , it is most instructive to examine the comments that 
accompanied the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The term "gross error" was first used in the 
regulations relating to the revocation of a nonimmigrant L-1 petition. In the 1986 proposed rule , an L-1 
revocation would be permitted if the approval had been "improvidently granted." 51 Fed. Reg. 18591, 18598 
(May 21, 1986)(Proposed Rule). After receiving comments that expressed concern that the phrase 
"improvidently granted" might be given a broader interpretation than intended, the agency changed the final 
rule to use the phrase "gross error." 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5749 (Feb. 26, 1987)(Final Rule). 
Upon review of the regulatory history and the common usage of the term, the AAO interprets the term "gross 
error" to be an unmitigated or absolute error , such as an approval that was granted contrary to the 
requirements stated in the statute or regulations. Regardless of whether there can be debate as to the legal 
determination of eligibility, any approval that US CIS determines to have been approved contrary to law must 
be considered an unmitigated error, and therefore a "gross error." This view of "gross error" is consistent with 
the example provided in the Federal Register. See 52 Fed. Reg. at 5749. 
The AAO agrees with counsel that the notice of revocation fell significantly short of including a detailed 
statement of the grounds for revocation, and specifically , was lacking an explanation as to why the initial 
evidence failed to establish that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. When denying a 
petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes 
informing a petitioner why the evidence failed to satisfy its burden of proof pursuant to section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
The administrative process provides for an appeal or a motion to reopen as a forum to overcome the disputed 
decision. The petitioner initially chose to file a motion instead of an appeal in response to the revocation 
decision. The director granted that motion, and cured many of the defects of the initial decision by issuing the 
August 20, 2009 decision , which provides a clearer statement of the grounds of ineligibility. Accordingly, we 
will not withdraw the director's original decision , nor will we remand the matter to the service center for 
issuance of a new notice of intent to revoke . The petitioner indicates that the evidence of record clearly 
establishes the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
As the AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein address the petitioner's evidence 
and eligibility based on the totality of evidence in the record. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004)(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
lll. Eligibility as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability in the Arts 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria 
set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
The petitioner is self-described as "an award-winning provider of innovative design solutions, with 
specializations in corporate interior design, retail establishment design, architectural design, advanced 
technology and broadcast, health sciences and graphics and branding." The petitioner counts a number of 
well-known retailers, prominent media companies and financial institutions among its clientele. 
The beneficiary is an interior and retail designer who possesses a Bachelor's degree in Industrial Design from 
the (2001) and a Master's degree in Interior Design from in New York 
(2006). The beneficiary has gained professional experience in the interior and retail design field with 
a Korean design firm, 
and with the petitioner's firm. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of designer. The petitioner asserted in its initial letter that the beneficiary "has 
extraordinary talent, expertise, acumen and experience in the field of Design, specifically Interior and Space 
Design, and is highly esteemed among her peers in the field." 
A. The Evidentiary Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular 
field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the 
beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or 
a Director's Guild Award as examples of qualifying significant awards or prizes. 
The petitioner did not claim that the beneficiary has received or been nominated for a comparable award in the 
field of interior or retail design, and counsel raises no objection to the director's finding that this criterion was not 
met. Further, the plain language of this criterion requires that the award be issued to the beneficiary, rather than 
to his or her employer. The two more prominent awards that have been attributed to the beneficiary, specifically, 
the , and the 
were awarded to the 
petitioning architecture and design firm, rather than to the beneficiary individually. Thus, even if the petitioner 
established that these awards could be considered significant national or international awards or prizes 
comparable to an Academy award or Grammy award, the evidence submitted would not be sufficient to satisfy 
the plain language of the regulation. 
Therefore, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six criteria set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by 
critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary qualifies under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(I) 
based upon her selection by the petitioner's principals to design spaces for "world-renowned and major 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
establishments" including the , the and the 
. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary has served as the "lead and primary 
Designer" for such projects, and was "personally responsible for these highly critical projects worth 
substantial amounts of money to our organization." 
The petitioner's managing director for its retail practice, also submitted an affidavit in which 
he states that the beneficiary has been employed by the company since June 2006 "in the important capacity 
of designer." He indicates that he can attest to "numerous impressive projects in which [the beneficiary] was 
personally engaged as the lead project Designer," including the 
and He stated that "only the most experienced and talented Designer" 
would be assigned to such projects. 
The petitioner submitted copies of its contracts with several clients with which the beneficiary has worked. 
Most of the contracts do not identify any of the petitioner's personnel by name; however the petitioner's 
contract with specified that was to be the "lead designer." 
With respect to the project, the petitioner submitted a letter from Design Manager 
for , who states that the beneficiary "was a key member of [the petitioner's] design team for the 
design projects." indicates that the projects were "very 
well received" and have resulted in increased sales numbers and positive feedback from customers and others 
in the industry. The petitioner submitted copies of invoices and contracts as evidence that the contract value 
for the design of luggage department was in excess of $275,000. 
The 
petitioner also provided evidence that published a full-page newspaper advertisement to announce 
the opening of its new luggage department, and evidence that the project ultimately received a 
for 'L 
' The petitioner indicated in its letter dated January 20, 2009 that the 
world's only non-profit organization focused on the international profession of 
II 
The petitioner further indicates that the beneficiary was chosen to design space for 
;, a project which resulted in the petitioner's receipt of the 
is "the 
and 
The petitioner submitted an article titled " 
"published in the June 30-July 7, 2008 issue of magazine. The article includes 
a reference to , and devotes a paragraph to a description of the 
store's design, noting that "the place looks like a gym dropped into the middle of an art gallery." The record 
also includes a copy of the petitioner's contract with the client, indicating that the project involved a total of 
eight different "packages." The contract included a schedule of hourly rates for 15 classes of employees who 
would work on the project, including design directors, designers and design assistants. 
(b)(6)
Page9 
The petitioner also claims that the beneficiary can satisfy this criteria based on work she performed as a 
designer in South Korea, specifically for the restaurant and the while 
employed by Korean design firm The petitioner notes that the franchised take-out restaurant 
"received rave reviews not only for its food and service but because of it's [sic] modern but 
authentic decor." The 
petitioner submitted two articles about the restaurant chain published in Korea's 
, which note the attractive and innovative design of the restaurants. 
Finally, the petitioner states that the beneficiary served as master planner for the an 
aerospace show that showcases advances made by South Korea's government and businesses. The petitioner 
indicated, and the beneficiary's former employer confirmed, that the beneficiary 
was solely responsible for the 
signage design for the show, and that the show continues to use the brand identity she created in 2001. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to satisfy each and every component of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l), which requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary 
"has performed and will perform services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have 
a distinguished reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, 
contracts, or endorsements." 
The record contains no evidence related to any specific production or event in which the beneficiary is 
expected to perform services as a lead or starring participant during the requested petition validity period. 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary the position of designer, and has not demonstrated that this position 
is inherently a "lead" or senior position within the company. In fact the beneficiary's job description indicates 
that she works with "senior designers" in carrying out her duties as a designer. The record establishes that the 
petitioner has an excellent reputation in the field and serves many prominent clients across many industries. It 
is reasonable to believe that the petitioner's design personnel, including the beneficiary, will work with a 
variety of such clients. However, it does not automatically follow that any design project assigned to the 
beneficiary in the future will be tantamount to serving as a lead participant in a "production or event" with a 
distinguished reputation. 
While the beneficiary has worked with several prestigious clients to date, not every design project has 
attracted attention that would lead to a finding that the "production or event," or in this case, the project, 
would be deemed to have a distinguished reputation. Based on the lack of evidence pertaining to the 
beneficiary's lead participation in any future productions or events, the petitioner has not satisfied the plain 
language of this criterion. 
The AAO is satisfied that the complete re-design and re-opening of the 
and the comprehensive design of the entire based on media mentions 
and awards received, could qualify as productions or events with a distinguished reputation. The petitioner 
has submitted a letter from confirming that the beneficiary served as a "key member" of the 
petitioner's design team for the luggage department project. Therefore, the AAO is persuaded that the 
beneficiary performed services as a lead participant for this project. 
The petitioner has not submitted similar confirmation regarding the beneficiary's lead role in the 
project. The petitioner submitted four pages of "inspiration images" prepared by the beneficiary for the 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
project, and a copy of the project agreement. The agreement indicates that the project involved eight separate 
"packages," and would involve a variety of personnel including design directors, designers, design assistants, 
space planners, a graphic designer, and project managers, as well as the firm's principals. In light of the scope 
of the project and the beneficiary's job title of "designer," it is not evident that the beneficiary was the "lead 
project designer" on this project. The petitioner did not provide a letter from the client confirming the 
beneficiary's involvement in the project as a lead participant, and the record contains no detailed description 
of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the project, project organizational chart, invoices, 
correspondence or other evidence that would corroborate the petitioner's claims regarding the beneficiary's 
"lead role." The AAO notes that the petitioner identified the beneficiary as the "lead designer" for a design 
project undertaken for Burberry while the contract for this project identifies a different individual in this same 
role. In light of this discrepancy, the AAO finds it reasonable to require additional objective evidence and 
explanation regarding the beneficiary's claimed leading role on the project. 
Based on the foregoing 
discussion, while the petitioner has established that the beneficiary has performed 
services as a lead participant for at least one production or event with a distinguished reputation in the past, 
the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring 
participant in such productions or events if the requested petition approval is granted. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) requires the petitioner to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements through submission of 
critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, 
magazines, or other publications. In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be 
primarily about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in major newspapers, magazines or 
other major publications. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as nominally serve a particular locality 
but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
papers.1 · 
The petitioner has not submitted any published evidence that is "about" the beneficiary or any published materials 
that even mention her name. Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy this criterion. While 
the petitioner submitted three published articles with favorable references to the interior design and appearance of 
retail stores, such evidence simply does not meet the plain language of this regulation. The petitioner has not 
provided evidence in the form of published articles to establish that the beneficiary has achieved national or 
international recognition for her individual achievements in the field of design. 
1 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in 
newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 
The director determined in both the revocation decision and on motion, that the beneficiary performs in a critical 
role for the petitioning organization, and thereby meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). The 
petitioner indicates that it considers the beneficiary to be its "best designer" and considers her work to be "critical 
to the continued success of the company." While the petitioner submitted no published evidence and little 
testimonial evidence to support these statements, we will not disturb the director's determination that this criterion 
has been met. The quality and quantity of the evidence submitted, and the weight to be given to such evidence, 
will be addressed further in the merits determination that follows our discussion of the evidentiary criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as 
evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion 
picture or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, 
major newspapers, or other publications 
The petitioner has not articulated a claim that the beneficiary qualifies under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). Upon review, the record does show that an announcement of the petitioner's receipt of 
the from the was 
published in the on August 26, 2008. While receipt of this award may be 
deemed a critically acclaimed achievement for the petitioning firm, the beneficiary received no individual 
recognition in this publication. As noted in our discussion of the first evidentiary criterion above, the 
petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the success of the 
project, for which the petitioner received the referenced award, should be attributed to 
directly to the beneficiary or that she played a lead role in this project. Furthermore, even if the AAO 
accepted that the can be considered to convey individual recognition to the 
beneficiary, the plain language of the regulation requires "a record of major commercial or critically 
acclaimed successes." Published evidence related to a single occupational achievement is insufficient to 
establish a "record" of major critically acclaimed successes. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted several letters relating to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). The petitioner submitted a peer group advisory letter from Executive 
Director of described the beneficiary as "an internationally 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
preeminent designer of interiors and space planner with a record of extraordinary accomplishments." She further 
stated: 
In our opinion, [the beneficiary's] many designs, which resulted in completed building interiors 
published in numerous magazines and newspapers, along with preeminence among her peers 
form the basis of our opinion. She is the only designer today working in such an innovative way. 
We have reviewed her recommendations and published work. The position she will assume as a 
designer for [the petitioner] can only be assumed by the most preeminent designer. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from CEO of the beneficiary's former employer __ ....; 
in Korea. stated: 
I am very proud of [the beneficiary] and her extensive body of work and success and that she has 
achieve widespread acclaim and recognition as a designer, specifically in the areas of space and 
interior design. [The beneficiary] definitely has achieved a degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, I have no hesitation in stating that her impressive 
body of work is truly outstanding and that she is an alien of Extraordinary Ability. 
[The beneficiary] is an award winning and cutting-edge designer whose focus is on creating 
highly creative, fluid designs that appeal to a variety of sensibilities, from the most traditional to 
the most modern. She has successfully applied her innovative solutions to interior design, space 
design and architecture in both indoor and outdoor media. From the beginning, her extensive 
body of work has focused on the details of how things are made confirming to the highest 
standards of aesthetic beauty and design. 
further states that the beneficiary "has successfully created designs for a variety of clientele that has 
further garnered national and widespread acclaim." He goes on to describe the beneficiary's work for the 
restaurant chain and the , and notes that the beneficiary was chosen to design 
own Seoul headquarters. indicates that, during her tenure with the beneficiary 
also worked on the which he describes as "a mega scale city project to 
educate students by a hands-on experience including a building concept, museum exhibition, and landscape 
adjacent to the building." He states that the beneficiary served as design director for the project and led a team of 
16 people to win first prize, which will lead to development of the project along with Kwanju city. 
Finally, he states that the beneficiary's receipt of this first prize award, along with the 
and "in addition to the praise and commendation she has received from critics and peers 
all over the world clearly highlight the fact that she possesses abilities far above others in her field." 
The record contains a letter from an associate member of the 
and an associate and designer for architecture and design firm in New Y ark City. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
indicates that she has known the beneficiary for almost four years, is familiar with her work, and 
believes that she "excels in the field of Interior Design" as evidenced by her receipt of "some of the most 
prestigious awards in our field." She notes that she worked with the beneficiary when the beneficiary served as 
an intern for . She describes the above-referenced and projects among the 
beneficiary's "most memorable projects" and notes that the fact that selected 
the beneficiary to work on its 
luggage department "is in itself a mark of her design talent and success." concludes by stating: 
In [the beneficiary's] career she has created an impressive body of work in the essential field of 
Interior Design. Thus far, I am extremely impressed with [the beneficiary's] body of work and do 
not hesitate to say that she is a truly extraordinary Interior Designer who has excelled in this 
highly competitive and creative field. Her future looks even brighter, particularly with the 
continued opportunity to work in New York City, the design capital of the country, if not the 
world. 
The petitioner submitted an additional testimonial letter from , a project manager with 
and former Assistant Vice President, 
indicates that he met the beneficiary six years ago at while she was working towards her Masters 
degree, and notes that he has learned over time "that she has made major contributions to Retail, Restaurant and 
Fitness industries for her age, which make her an extraordinary candidate." He opines that the beneficiary's 
"significant skills & talent in the field of design, both in Industrial Design and Interior Design are unparalleled 
and make her stand out from her peers both domestically and internationally." With respect to the beneficiary's 
specific achievements, states: 
Among the impressive list of design contributions [the beneficiary] has made while in her short 
time here in the US, she has designed for a global roster of clients such as 
the 
(the largest in the world) and many others. 
These clients are all global marquee brand names or major institutions and competition is stiff 
for being selected as the exclusive designer for these clients. 
This makes [the beneficiary] truly exceptional to have surpassed other designers in being 
selected and these noteworthy projects that have global recognition and are significant landmarks 
of New York City culture and retail. 
.... To summarize, her contributions and design capability is truly unique and unparalleled in 
the interior and industrial industry. It's evident that in her short time here, she has made major 
contributions not only her field, but to a culture as important as New York City. Her 
accomplishments have won her critical acclaim that are recognized at both the domestic and 
international level as evidenced by her major design awards such as 
as well as the 
I believe without hesitation that [the beneficiary's] work is truly 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
Extraordinary in her field of Arts & Design, and significantly superior over any other ability 
normally encountered. [The beneficiary's] expertise and accomplishments will continue to be 
regarded as valuable and crucial to the design field in the United States and garner her continued 
praise and acclaim. 
chief exhibition designer of in Korea, states that the 
beneficiary was selected as a designer with his firm in 2001, and worked with him for a period of two years. He 
notes that she "demonstrated enormous enthusiasm and passion for planning and designing," was "very creative" 
and "brought amazing computer rendering skills to what she master planned for the government and institutions 
we worked for." He discusses the beneficiary's work as the designer for the , and notes that 
"it is rare to meet a person like her, who understands what she or he is doing at a young age." indicates 
that the beneficiary "showed extraordinary cognition in design as well as good skills in computer graphics," and 
states that due to the beneficiary's work, his firm has been chosen to design the biannual show. He describes the 
beneficiary as "the kind of person who can be a leader in the industry," and "a designer who is willing to and is 
capable of making the world better." 
The petitioner's initial evidence included an additional testimonial letter from Design Director and 
CEO of a Korean interior design firm focused on restaurant design. states that the 
beneficiary came to his attention when she was asked to work on the project in January 2006. He 
further states: 
[The beneficiary] was selected on the basis of her unique ability to conceptualize space using 
both hand drawn and computer solutions at a distinct level of abstraction. She is one of a very 
few interior designers using both of these techniques today. I selected her as the designer of 
because she was the finest designer with the creativity to make such a small space 
into a unique restaurant with both eastern and western sensibilities. This project was quite a 
challenge, but [the beneficiary] made it into an extraordinary space. She successfully 
transformed her conceptual ideas into a practical space. Her fresh touch changed the idea that 
take out restaurants are dingy and unwelcome , and demonstrated that they can be pleasant and 
gorgeous. As a result my firm was selected to develop other locations for as well 
as to develop other small restaurant franchises. 
opines that the beneficiary "exhibits unusual talent for achieving a specific image, which is the product 
of imagination, talent and concentration." He describes the beneficiary as "one of today's most original and 
creative interior and space designers." 
The petitioner submitted an additional letter from a commercial interior designer with 
and a member of states 
that he worked with the beneficiary at in 2005, and describes her as "a very talented 
designer" with "a great breadth of work both in Korea and the US." He indicates that he is "tremendously 
impressed with [the beneficiary] and ha[ s] no hesitation in stating that she is a extraordinary interior designer and 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
space planner and has excelled in this highly competitive and creative field." Finally, 
the beneficiary has "demonstrated extraordinary and unique artistic abilities." 
opines that 
Principal with a major architectural design firm, also submitted a testimonial letter in support of 
the petition. He indicates that he has reviewed the beneficiary's portfolio and subsequently tracked her progress 
while in his employ at a previous firm. He states: 
As a designer, [the beneficiary] focuses on creating highly creative, fluid designs that appeal to a 
variety of sensibilities; from the most traditional to the most modern. She has successfully 
· applied her innovative solutions to interior and space design in a variety of media; including her 
significant skills in computer graphics. From the onset of our professional relationship, I've 
noticed how her work has focused on conforming to the highest standards of design. 
[The beneficiary] stands out in a field of designers as the one to take charge, think outside the 
box, and assert herself as a talented problem solver. As a working designer, she is significantly 
enhancing her background as a professional designer and creating a reputation as a distinguished 
professional. 
The petitioner provided a letter from 
With respect to the beneficiary, 
Adjunct Professor of Interior and Industrial Design at 
states: 
[The beneficiary] was a talented and hard working designer in my class. She was strongly 
committed to challenging herself creatively . Her designs were always an interesting and 
thoughtful combination of Korean and Western cultures. She approached her projects with a 
very personal, insightful viewpoint which was backed up with thoughtful research. Her 
exploration and understanding of space, materials and function sets this young designer to 
become a very creative force in the American design world. Her post-school professional work 
is outstanding. She is a very talented person and represents the best we have. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from architect and principal of and the 
beneficiary's former instructor at He indicates that he has been mentoring the beneficiary · during 
her time in New York. addresses the beneficiary's abilities and achievements as follows: 
Gifted in communicating the design process and challenging herself to attain the ultimate in her 
theoretical approach, I have generally found her findings and conclusions sensitive and 
challenging. There is no question that [the beneficiary] is one of today's most original and 
creative interior and space designers. She is truly a blossoming professional who has found a 
way to motivate and inspire herself to design to the highest levels of creativity and 
professionalism . 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
praises the beneficiary's talents, commitment, sincerity and personal character, and asserts that "she 
will continue to influence and contribute to our profession for many years to come." 
In response to the director's notice of intent to revoke the petition approval, the petitioner submitted additional 
testimonial letters in support of the petition. This evidence included a letter from an interior 
indicates designer/project manager with in New York. 
that she has worked for ten years on "a variety of high end projects" such as department stores 
, and is familiar with and the states that she worked with the beneficiary at 
the beneficiary's body of work. opines that the beneficiary "has truly achieved widespread acclaim and 
recognition as a Designer, specifically in the areas of space and interior design and has achieved success both 
domestically and internationally." Portions of letter closely resemble the letter from . For 
example, writes that the beneficiary's "focus is on creating highly creative, fluid designs that appeal to a 
variety of sensibilities, from the most traditional to the most modern." 
goes on to reference the "national and widespread acclaim" the beneficiary has garnered as a result of her 
work with such clients as restaurant, the 
and the showroom, noting that the beneficiary "has been chosen at least twice by 
to design spaces for them. 
11 
further states: 
It is obvious that [the beneficiary's) abundant and unique talent is widely recognized both 
domestically and internationally. She has won numerous major design awards including the 
the 
First Prize in the 
prestigious award from the 
-
in South Korea and most recently won a 
in the category of 11 
11 
for her work at 
In sum, [the beneficiary's] impressive body of work to date in the ever-important field of Arts 
and Design clearly evidence that her knowledge, work and expertise is extraordinary. I have no 
hesitation in stating that she is a truly extraordinary Interior and Space Designer and has excelled 
in this highly competitive and creative field. 
The petitioner's response to the notice of intent to revoke also included more detailed letters from 
and The petitioner also provided a second letter from t, who addressed the 
beneficiary's post-academic career: 
I have followed [the beneficiary's] work since her graduation from and I have seen many 
of her projects. Her work is very cutting edge, combining the need for functional selling spaces 
with a certain special quality of meaningful environment ... that only a first rate designer can 
create. She has completed both interior showroom and retail spaces as well as in store shops and 
fixtures. A recent project, for which she has been chosen twice, is for NY 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
City. , one of the largest retail chains in the US, commissioned her firm to design the 
largest luggage department in any US store. [The beneficiary] was chosen to design this most 
impressive project. 
Other projects she has designed include in-gym shops for is one of the 
countries [sic] leading gyms and spas. The shops are to be located in all of their gyms in the US. 
A current project that she is working on is a showroom for clothing. 
In addition, [the beneficiary] has won many national and international awards for her design 
work. This alone is a tribute to her unique talent. She has won awards from the 
as well as awards from 
the to name a few. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from an interior designer for in New York. 
states that she worked with the beneficiary at , offers her opinion that the beneficiary "has 
achieved success both domestically and internationally," and states that she "has achieved a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered. goes on to praise the beneficiary's discipline, talent, 
industry knowledge, professionalism, intelligence, work ethic and personality. She indicates that the beneficiary 
has garnered national and widespread acclaim in Korea and in the United States based on the work she did with 
, the and 
or" " Finally, notes that the beneficiary has won the 
, first prize in the and an 
for her work on the She opines that "[the beneficiary's] receipt of these 
awards in addition to the praise and commendation she has received from critics and peers all over the world 
clearly highlight the fact that she possesses abilities far above others in the field." 
The petitioner's response to the notice of intent to revoke also included a letter from , Managing 
Director of the for the petitioner's group, who indicates that she has worked with the 
beneficiary for over two years. states that the beneficiary "has achieved widespread recognition in 
the design field, both in the U.S. and abroad," and "has successfully created designs for a variety of clientele that 
has garnered national and widespread recognition." She mentions the beneficiary's work with 
', and 
, the 
and the awards 
mentioned in the letter from In fact, there are several paragraphs of text that are repeated almost 
verbatim in several of the recommendation letters. asserts that the beneficiary has demonstrated 
"extraordinary and unique artistic abilities" and "has received sustained national and international acclaim" with 
achievements that are "widely recognized in the field." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from an architect in the field of construction management. 
He does not indicate how he became familiar with the beneficiary's work, but, according to his resume, he worked 
for as an assistant and technical manager from 2005 to 2007. Several paragraphs from 
letter appear verbatim in other letters submitted in response to the notice of intent to revoke. 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
states that the beneficiary has "truly achieved widespread acclaim and recognition as a Designer, specifically in 
the areas of space and interior design and has achieved success both domestically and internationally." He also 
indicates that the beneficiary "has achieved a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered." 
He goes on to discuss the beneficiary's projects and awards and notes that "she has received sustained national 
and international acclaim and her achievements have been widely revered in the field." The petitioner also 
provided a nearly identical letter from chief exhibition designer for the 
in Korea. states that he worked on the and as such is "very familiar with 
[the beneficiary's] body of work." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a new letter from who indicates that he has known the beneficiary 
for seven years and finds her to be "one of the most successful post graduate professionals from our prestigious 
program at " Once again, portions of this letter are essentially identical to the other 
recommendation letters in the record. He states that, since completing her studies at the , the 
beneficiary "has garnered national and widespread acclaim" based on her work for and the 
and that she has made "major inroads in the Design world in the U.S." He specifically mentions 
the beneficiary's work with and 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erroneously discounted the submitted testimonial evidence 
notwithstanding the fact that "the letters state in glowing terms how impressed the writers are with the 
beneficiary's design work." Counsel emphasizes that the letters identify the beneficiary's significant contributions 
by pointing out "specific events or projects that have been praised and conclusively establish that the beneficiary's 
work has garnered significant recognition." In addition, counsel asserts that the awards the beneficiary received 
are also evidence of significant recognition from organizations and critics, and as evidence that these 
organizations consider the beneficiary's work to be "significant and prominent." 
Upon review, the AAO finds counsel's assertions persuasive in part. The AAO agrees that the awards 
attributed to the beneficiary, although not awarded to her individually, do reflect recognition from 
organizations in the beneficiary's field . The extensive testimonial evidence in the record varies greatly in 
terms of its relevance and probative value; however, the AAO concur with counsel's assertion that the director 
erred by discounting such evidence altogether. The petitioner has satisfied the plain language of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary 
or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced 
by contracts or other reliable evidence 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $57,000. It has not claimed that the beneficiary has 
commanded or will command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field. Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)( 6). 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the six 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and (B). 
B. Merits of the Evidence in the Aggregate 
As discussed above, the AAO follows a two-step approach where the evidence is first counted against the 
regulatory criteria, and then considered in the context of a review of the merits of the evidence in the aggregate. 
However, as discussed above, the petitioner submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language of only two of the 
criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Accordingly, we concur with the director's 
finding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is prominent to the extent that she could be 
considered renowned, leading or well-known in the field of design. 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The petitioner submitted evidence 
that satisfied the plain language of the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3), by establishing 
that the petitioner, an organization with a distinguished reputation in interior and retail design considers her to be 
a "critical" employee based on her 
talents and the success of her prior assignments with the firm. As noted above, 
the petitioner submitted no published evidence and little testimonial evidence in support of this criterion. The 
petitioner did submit extensive testimonial evidence in support of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), and the AAO is satisfied that the awards the petitioner received for two of the 
beneficiary's projects can be considered evidence of recognition by organizations in her field. However the 
record as a whole does not support description of the beneficiary as "an internationally 
preeminent designer of interiors and space planner with a record of extraordinary accomplishments." 
Based on the evidence of record, the beneficiary is a highly talented and successful designer who has participated 
in projects for the petitioner's high profile clients, two of which resulted in the petitioner's receipt of design 
awards. While the petitioner refers to her as its "best designer," there is no evidence that she occupies a senior or 
lead position within the firm at this stage or her career, or 
that she is has earned recognition from persons who are 
not directly familiar with her and her work on a professional basis. While the testimonial evidence in the record 
suggests that she has an extremely bright future in her profession, the petitioner has not sustained its burden to 
establish that she is currently renowned, leading or well-known in the design field. 
The AAO emphasizes that four out of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) require the 
petitioner to submit various types of published materials to establish the beneficiary's recognition, such as critical 
reviews, advertisements , publicity releases, newspaper, magazine or trade journal articles. Therefore , it is 
significant that the petitioner has submitted no published evidence regarding the beneficiary, and little published 
evidence relating to her work or achievements. Absent evidence that the regulatory criteria are not applicable to 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
the beneficiary's occupation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C), the petitioner must submit published 
materials "about" the beneficiary in order to establish her eligibility for this classification. The AAO cannot 
include the beneficiary among the group of designers recognized in the field as leading, renowned or well-known 
if the petitioner does not establish that she has received significant independent recognition based on his own 
reputation or achievements, consistent with the evidentiary criteria. 
Therefore, the conclusion we reach by considering each evidentiary criterion separately is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary 
as a singer or musician who has achieved a level of distinction to the extent that she can be deemed to be 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of design. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent that he 
may be said to be renowned, leading, or well-known in the arts. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and the petition may 
not be approved. 
In visa petition 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.