dismissed O-1B Case: Floral Design

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 1 5 2015 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrati on Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington . DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C . § IIOI(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis .gov/i-290b) contains 
the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
pr:IZ!~ 
Ron Rosenberg /--
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and 
the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner, a floral design and arrangement business, filed this petition seeking to classify the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant alien of extraordinary ability in the arts pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a senior floral designer for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the submitted evidence did not satisfy the 
evidentiary requirements applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). The director also determined that the petitioner did not submit 
copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the beneficiary and an explanation of the 
nature of the events or activities as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner did not establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility as an individual with extraordinary ability in the arts. Accordingly, we will 
uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to 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) provides, in pertinent part: 
"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 
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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary 's recognition in the field through evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for, or is 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l)-(6). If the petitioner demonstrates that certain 
criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv)(B) 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
have held that "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
director must examine 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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.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 . .. 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. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii) provides that petitions for 0 aliens shall be 
accompanied by the following: 
(A) The evidence specified in the particular section for the classification; 
(B) Copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the alien 
beneficiary or, if there is no written contract , a summary of the terms of the 
oral agreement under which the alien will be employed ; 
(C) An explanation of the nature of the events or activities , the beginning and 
end dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the 
events or activities; and 
(D) A written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or 
entities. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. Discussion 
The petltloner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on July 1, 2014. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
senior floral designer. The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on 
July 11,2014, to which the petitioner replied. The evidence submitted in support of the petition 
includes several testimonial letters, the beneficiary's portfolio, articles pertaining to the 
beneficiary's work and copies of awards the beneficiary received in Japan. We have considered 
the evidence of record in its entirety in reaching this decision. 
In its initial letter in support of the petition dated June 26, 2014, the petitioner described itself as a 
"specialty floral design studio." The petitioner counts a number of prominent companies, 
including '' " among its clientele. The record reflects that the 
beneficiary is a floral designer who has gained professional experience working as a floral 
designer in Japan and as an HIB nonimmigrant with another company,. 
The petitioner describes the beneficiary as "one of the most prominent, renowned, 
creative and contemporary artists in ikebana-style floral design" whose "unique and specialized 
floral creation has been exhibited and critically acclaimed in Japan where the art of ikebana was 
[sic] originated in [the] 15th century." On appeal, the petitioner submitted its contract with the 
beneficiary that the parties signed. 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The first issue to be addressed 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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). In denying the petition, the director determined that 
the evidence submitted does not satisfY any of these criteria. After careful review, the evidence of 
record does not establish that the petitioner has overcome the director's grounds for denial. This 
decision will first discuss whether the petitioner has satisfied either 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or 
(B) and will then address the new assertion on appeal that the petitioner has submitted qualifYing 
comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or has been the recipient of 
signtficant national or international avvards or prizes in the particular field such as 
an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy or a Director's Guild Award. 
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 have submitted 
the requisite initial evidence 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 asserts that the beneficiary received two awards, which it contends, in its 
response to the director's RFE, are "the most prestigious national awards in the .field of Ikebana" 
(emphasis in original), comparable to an Academy Award or Grammy Award. Upon review, the 
evidence of record does not establish eligibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner has submitted evidence, in the form of award certifications, of the beneficiary's 
receipt of the following awards for "artistic excellence": 
1. 
2. 
Japan, signed the award certificates. 
This criterion specifically requires significant national or international awards in the field of 
endeavor, and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. The record 
contains insufficient evidence establishing the significance and magnitude of the preceding 
competitions and the extent to which the nominees or winners of such awards are recognized 
beyond the issuing body. The petitioner did not provide general information about the 
competitions (such as the eligibility criteria, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of 
recognition). Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the recipients of the preceding honors 
were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with a significant national or 
international award. For example, the winners and nominees of Emmy and Grammy awards 
receive significant national and international media attention as the result of their recognition, and 
the awards themselves are considered among the highest achievements attainable in the performing 
arts. Although, in its response to the RFE, the petitioner asserted that "the beneficiary's receipt of 
... was prominently reported both by 
[magazines]," the record does not contain that report or any other media coverage of 
the award. 
Nor can it be concluded based on the testimonial evidence in the record that such awards are 
comparable in importance to the highly recognizable awards mentioned in the regulations. The 
petitioner submitted two letters from In 
his first letter dated May 16, 2014, states that Ikebana, the traditional Japanese 
art of floral arrangement, "was originated by our in 
the 151h century" and that "[ISFA's] history of over 500 years is the history of Ikebana itself, 
dating back to 1462." describes Ikebana as "a system of aesthetics, philosophy 
and discipline with a focus on personal development, spiritual ascension and artistic perfection .. . 
not just the creation of aesthetical flower arrangements." describes the 
beneficiary's skills in ikebana as follows: 
[The beneficiary] is a certified master of [Ikenobo ikebana] with a mission to promote the 
floral arrangement styles officially sanctioned by [ISF A] in the United States. After years 
of training as one of my select disciples , [the beneficiary] has attained the Pro_fessorship 
Certfficate which authorizes her to teach the Ikenobo styles of Ikebana and open her own 
Ikebana school without supervision .... [The beneficiary 's] mastery of Ikenobo's 
philosophy and technique has been recognized and critically acclaimed as she received 
numerous awards including two (2) at 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Japan's largest and oldest floral exhibition, the , held in 
and • ... For this eminent exhibition, over 1,700 masters and students oflkebana from 
all over Japan and the world convene at the I I in: , Japan and demonstrate their 
magnificent talents for the 1 
In his second letter dated September 16, 2014, 
beneficiary as follows: 
describes the awards won by the 
[The] is a[n] international program, 
attracting anywhere between 1700 and 1900 masters and professionals from all over the 
world, mostly through our international chapters. In the first instance, all entries are 
submitted and judged in each geographic areas (sic) .... Subsequently, only the regional 
level winners are allowed to progress to become the international pool of entries for [the] 
states that the jury for the program is composed of "prominent scholars" whose 
decisions are guided by a uniform set of criteria, called "Core Principles," and that the highest 
award of the program is the which is given to the 
work judged to be "the most significant for the advancement of ikebana." 
describes the as an "internationally significant" 
award, and the fact that the beneficiary won the award two times as "an extraordinary 
accomplishment and highest degree of her recognition." He further states "with respect to [the 
beneficiary's] standing in the field" that the that included the 
beneficiary's work "drew a special mention from " 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from editor-in-chief of 
magazine in Japan. Ms. states that "[the beneficiary] became professional flower 
designer of the year not only in the world of ikebana but in a larger floral design profession when 
she won the at the . ," which 
Ms. describes as "the largest annual event, honoring the most creative masters of the art of 
ikebana Japan." She also notes that the beneficiary won the award again in Ms. 
explains that "only a few ikebana masters are nominated and given an opportunity to compete for 
the most coveted awards amongst hundreds of practitioners of ikebana nationwide and from 
abroad." However, Ms. does not state the basis of her knowledge of the significance ofthe 
beneficiary's awards. And while the exhibition may encompass floral design as a whole, Ms. 
does not explain how the beneficiary's award from one school of Ikebana at the festival 
represents recognition beyond that school. In addition, Ms. does not assert that 
magazine covered the event and award selections. Although the beneficiary's submitted 
portfolio contained photographs of the beneficiary's floral designs that may have appeared in 
magazme m and , those magazines only credit the beneficiary, and do not 
discuss the significance of the annual 1 
1 The petitioner submitted cover pages from this magazine followed by what appear to be pages from that 
magazine with photographs crediting the beneficiary as the arranger. These pages, however, do not bear the 
name of the publication or, in some cases, page numbers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The record also contains a letter from editor-in-chief of magazine in Japan, 
who states that the beneficiary "has won one of the most prestigious awards, the 
" Ms. does not indicate that magazine 
covered the event and award selections. Although the beneficiary's submitted portfolio contained 
photographs ofthe beneficiary's floral designs that may have appeared in from 
and those magazines only credit the beneficiary and do not discuss the significance of the 
annual 2 
The petitioner further submitted a letter from Director of 
Mr. explains that "while . there are literally hundreds of ikebana classes and 
schools in Japan and around the world, the is the only educational and 
research institution established by the I (also known as the ). Our mission 
is to preserve, promote and advance the 500-year-old teaching of the .... " Mr. 
, does explain how the currently fits within the larger field of ikebana other 
than to assert that the other schools have "branched off' of the Mr. 
asserts that the beneficiary won the award while a special instructor at the 
Mr. does not discuss the significance of the 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it IS attaching "further documentation relating to" the 
significance of the . The submitted documentation 
is downloaded from the website and pertains to the The 
documents describe this award as "one ofthe historical awards in Japan for Ikebana . .. held since 
as ." From the information the petitioner provided, we are unable to 
determine if this information pertains to the The 
website lists the following awards associated with this event: 
and the The website does not mention the 
that issues. Moreover, the website indicates that 
will honor those who win the prize more than two times with "Official Professor." While the 
beneficiary won two prizes from , the record does not reflect that · 
honored her with the title of "Official Professor. " Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 
the relevance of the geocities website information to the awards the beneficiary received from 
Upon review, we concur with the director that the record does not contain corroborating evidence 
in support of the petitioner's assertion that the are 
"the most prestigious national awards in the field of Ikebana." The testimonial evidence alone 
2 As with , the petitioner submitted cover pages from magazine followed by what appear 
to be pages from that magazine with photographs crediting the beneficiary as the arranger. These pages, 
however, do not bear the name of the publication or, in some cases, page numbers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
does not provide sufficient context in which to evaluate the significance of the beneficiary's 
awards. The evidence of record establishes that issues the 
at an international event, but the record does not establish that winning the 
issued by one school of ikebana at this event is comparable in stature to an 
Academy, Emmy Grammy or Director's Guild award. Although generally 
describes the selection process for participation in the event, the record contains insufficient 
evidence regarding the eligibility criteria, or the extent to which the winners of such awards are 
recognized beyond the issuing body. The petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary 
received recognition for her achievement beyond receiving the diploma certificates from the 
awarding organization. 
Without documentation to provide additional context regarding the beneficiary's awards within the ' 
scope of her occupation, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's awards in the floral design field 
are regarded as comparable to, for example, an Academy award in the motion picture field. It is 
the petitioner 's burden to establish how the submitted evidence establishes eligibility under the 
regulatory criterion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici , 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' l 
Comm'r 1972)). As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has won a 
significant national or international award or prize in her field that would qualify for her for 0-1 
status under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) . 
Therefore, petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will address these criteria below.3 
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 
In general, in order for published material to satisfy this criterion, it must be by or about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines 
or other major publications. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant 
national or international distribution. The director determined that the evidence of record does not 
establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The petitioner has not submitted any published materials that are specifically "about" the 
beneficiary as an individual or that she authored. The petitioner submitted the above-referenced 
letter from editor-in-chief of magazine in Japan. Ms. states that 
is "Japan's renowned publication specializing in the floral art, both traditional and 
contemporary" that "only features the most creative floral designers who have contributed [to] the 
profession of floral design with distinction," and that "[the beneficiary] is one of those floral 
designers handpicked by for her brilliant artistic creatio!l in the form of the 
3 
The petitioner does not claim that it satisfies the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
traditional Japanese art called 'ikebana"' However, as previously noted, although the beneficiary's 
portfolio contained photographs of the beneficiary's floral design work that may have appeared in 
magazine in and those magazine issues only credit the beneficiary as the 
designer of the floral arrangements pictured. 
The petitioner also submitted the above-referenced letter from editor-in-chief of 
magazine , in Japan. Ms. states that magazine is "Japan's largest trade 
publication for floral professionals ranging from traditional ikebana professionals to the 
contemporary ." Ms. states as follows: 
Since [the beneficiary] has won one ofthe most prestigious awards, the 
has done six (6) dedicated articles on [the beneficiary], 
featuring her editorial articles on her b_oldly creative, progressive and contemporary flower 
design and arrangement .... [The beneficiary ' s] articles were well received by our readers. 
The record only includes photographs that may have appeared in this magazine that credit the 
beneficiary as the flower arranger. The record does not contain articles in this magazine about the · 
beneficiary or editorials she authored. While other criteria may be satisfied through submission of 
testimonials and recommendations, this criterion specifically requires documentation of national or 
international recognition for achievements as reported in published format. 
The record does contain material the beneficiary authored that appeared in The 
petitioner has not established whether this material is an advertisement for the 
included in the heading with a phone number, or whether this material appeared in a publication or a 
printed brochure. In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
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 dete1mined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). The petitioner has submitted five testimonial letters in 
support of the petition. Three of the letters provide information that is relevant to this criterion. 
First, Mr. •, Director of states that the beneficiary was 
"commissioned by our to serve as Special Instructor at the 
m " Mr. further states as follows: 
As the Special Instructor ... [the beneficiary] was responsible for advanced courses in the 
traditional and contemporary Rikka, Shoka and Jiyuka style ..... Please note that the 
has less than 30 instructors at any given time and accept[s] only 
200 students out of hundreds of applicants .... [The beneficiary] was chosen by the 
and~ fur~ 
position of Special Instructor based on her mastery of specialized teachings of our 
record of major awards and the critical role she played for our 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
Ms. and Ms. 
their editors and Ms. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
both assert that the beneficiary has served as an editorial consultant to 
asserts that the beneficiary has authored editorials for 
Upon review, the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary performed in a lead, 
starring or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's role for was in a 
lead or critical role. In order to establish that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for 
an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation , the petitioner must establish the 
nature of her role within the entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the 
organization or establishment. 
Mr. letter asserts that the beneficiary was responsible for advanced courses and that 
has less than 30 instructors at any given time. Mr. does not 
explain how the beneficiary fits within the overall hierarchy of the school or how she impacted the 
school, such as through increased enrollment. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary has performed in a lead, starring or critical role for With 
respect to the institute's reputation, Mr. asserts that the center is the only institution 
established, and that other schools have branched off of the school. The petitioner 
did not submit independent evidence of the reputation of the such as 
coverage of the school in significant trade publications or the general media. 
With respect to the publications , and the record does not contain magazine credits 
affirming the beneficiary's role for these magazines. In addition, the record does not contain the 
beneficiary's editorials for 
In addition, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the petitioner submit evidence 
that the beneficiary will perform in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The evidence of record does not establish that 
the beneficiary's proposed role with the petitioning organization would satisfy the requirement that 
she will be performing in such a role. The record does not establish how the beneficiary's 
proposed position falls in the overall hierarchy of the petitioner's organization , or her proposed 
impact on the organization. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Finally, 
although the petitioner has stated that its acclaim and distinction is clearly demonstrated by its 
"impressive list of distinguished corporate clients," the petitioner has not submitted any 
documentary evidence to establish that it enjoys a distinguished reputation in the floral design field. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
(b)(6)
Page II 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by title, rating, standing in the field , box office receipts, 
motion pictures or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported 
in trade journals, major newspapers , or other publications 
In order to satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) the petitioner must 
submit evidence that the beneficiary 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 asserts that the beneficiary's satisfaction of this criterion is "evidenced by her 
standing in the field reported in major publications such as and " As 
previously noted, although the beneficiary's portfolio contained photographs of the beneficiary's 
floral designs that may have appeared in these magazines, the petitioner has not established that 
merely being credited as the floral designer for the pictured arrangements is indicative of 
commercial or critical acclaim or constitutes a title, rating or standing in the field or reports of 
occupational achievements. 
In addition, in response to the RFE, the petitioner relies on the recommendation letter of the 
dated September 16, 2014, in which he states that, "[w]ith respect to [the 
beneficiary's] standing in the field" the that included the beneficiary's 
work "drew a special mention from ." The director dete1mined 
that such evidence does not satisfy this criterion. The record supports that conclusion. While other 
criteria may be satisfied through submission of testimonials and recommendations, this criterion 
specifically requires documentation of commercial or critically acclaimed success as reported in 
published format. In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy the 
plain language ofthe regulation 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 . 
The director determined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation 
from four individuals. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director "seems to entirely discount 
testimonials from individuals who are themselves irrefutably determined to be experts." The 
letters of support submitted by the beneficiary's colleagues will be addressed below. 
The petitioner also asserts that the advisory opinion letter from , a professional 
floral designer, satisfies this criterion. While the letter from Ms. satisfies the petitioner 's 
burden to submit a written advisory opinion from an appropriate consulting entity pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(D), it cannot be used for the dual purpose of satisfying the regulatory criteria 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Consultations are advisory and are not binding on USCIS. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(D). 
In the above-referenced letter from dated May 16, 2014, he describes the 
beneficiary as "a certified master" who "has attained the Professorship Cerf?ficate which 
authorizes her to teach the and open her own school without 
supervision. " He states that "the beneficiary's mastery of philosophy and technique has 
been recognized and critically acclaimed" as demonstrated by the beneficiary 's receipt of two 
states that the beneficiary has made 
significant contributions to the and Japanese culture. 
The above-referenced letter from Ms. editor-in-chief of magazine, states that 
the beneficiary "taught the most experienced practitioners of ikebana accredited with first 
or . . . at the as a special 
instructor." Ms. also states that "[t]here are only about three hundred accredited teachers 
with higher grade of [The beneficiary] was hand-selected by Grandmaster to 
educate these accredited teachers in her expertise area .. .. " Ms. does not state the basis of 
her knowledge of the beneficiary's teaching experience or the accreditation levels of ikebana 
instruction. 
The above-referenced letter from Ms. editor-in-chief of magazine, states that "floral 
designers and practitioners of ikebana are studying [the beneficiary's] floral design." She states 
that the magazine "compiled [the beneficiary ' s] specialized techniques in I flower design 
manuals for professionals " and that the beneficiary "has also been a creative consultant to our 
editorial board." While Ms. explains the beneficiary 's contributions to magazine ' s 
flower design manuals and as a creative consultant to the magazine's editorial board, Ms. 
does not explain how the beneficiary's achievements to date have received significant recognition 
from organizations , critics, government agencies or other recognized · experts in the field. As 
discussed above, the record lacks magazine credits confirming these roles. 
The above-referenced letter from Mr. states that "it was our pleasure and privilege to have 
[the beneficiary] as one of [the] educators at the " 
Upon review, the evidence of record supports the director's determination that the submitted 
evidence does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). As noted above, to 
satisfy this evidentiary criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government 
agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which she is engaged. Any testimonials must 
be in a form which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise , and knowledge of the alien ' s 
achievements . 
USCIS may, in its discretion , use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International , 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary 's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 13 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the beneficiary's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see 
also Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal?fornia, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
The submitted reference letters all praise the beneficiary 's talent and abilities. While reference 
letters can provide useful information about a beneficiary's qualifications or help in assigning weight 
to certain evidence, the submitted reference letters did not address the beneficiary's specific 
achievements in the field of floral design. Although all of the testimonials mention the 
beneficiary's receipt of the in Japan in and as 
discussed above, the scope and significance of the awards issued at a festival has not been 
established through any corroborating evidence . The submitted evidence does not establish that the 
prizes rise to the level of a "significant recognition for achievements from organizations in the field" 
pursuant to the plain language of the criterion. 
It remains the petitioner's burden to establish the beneficiary's significant recognition for 
achievements in the field. As discussed, the testimonial evidence submitted does not meet this 
burden. Overall, while the beneficiary has earned the respect of her colleagues and well-known 
figures in the art of floral design, the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements in the field. Based on the 
foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations , critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field. 
Comparable Evidenc e under 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that if the petitioner demonstrates that 
certain criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. On appeal, for the first time, 
the petitioner asserts that it has previously submitted qualifying comparable evidence of the 
beneficiary 's eligibility under the "comparable evidence" provisiOn at 8 
C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). The petltwner asserts that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B) are not readily applicable to the beneficiary's occupation as follows: 
[T]he profession in which the beneficiary is engaged is extremely unique. It is an ancient art 
form that has been practiced for hundreds of years and simply will not yield the type of 
evidence or proof that one would normally collect for an 01 submission .... That central 
concept of"starring" is uniformly found in the "First Criterion" and the "The Third Criterion". 
Moreover, the "Fourth Criterion" requires the applicant to submit evidence of major 
commercial or critically acclaimed successes such as box office ratings, sales etc. Again, this 
is simply an impossibility in the ancient field of ikebana-style floral design. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, places the burden of proof on the party seeking benefits. 
Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to 
the beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective 
evidence required at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) through (6). As stated previously, the record 
reflects that the beneficiary is a floral designer who has gained professional experience working as 
a floral designer in Japan and as an HlB nonimmigrant with another company, 
The petitioner's explanation for why the criteria are not applicable does not 
take into account that the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) and (3) allow for lead or lead 
or critical roles. While the evidence the petitioner submitted to satisfy 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(3) 
does not meet that criterion, an inability to meet a criterion does not demonstrate that the criterion 
is not applicable. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the trade magazines 
documented in the record do not report on or review ikebana works in a manner that might 
demonstrate critically acclaimed success. 
Further, the record does not establish that the evidence the petitioner requests us to consider as 
comparable is, in fact, comparable to the evidence discussed in the criteria. The petitioner 
references the testimonial letters, which we have already considered under the criteria. The 
petitioner does not explain why the fact that members of the beneficiary's field support the petition 
with letters that praise the beneficiary but do not sufficiently demonstrate that she meets specific 
criteria are comparable evidence in and of themselves. The petitioner specifically references the 
letters from editors of magazines who affirm that the beneficiary has served as an editorial 
consultant and has authored editorials. As previously discussed, the petitioner has not submitted 
magazine credits listing the beneficiary as an editorial consultant and has not submitted copies of 
the editorials she authored. 
Finally, whether one relies on the standard regulatory criteria or on comparable evidence, the 
burden is still on the petitioner to show that the beneficiary a high level of achievement in the arts 
evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the 
extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts as 
required by 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). While the letters praise the beneficiary's awards from a 
single school of ikebana and discuss roles for two magazines, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence corroborating these claims in a manner consistent with a conclusion that the beneficiary 
is renowned, leading or well-known in the field of ikebana overall. Accordingly, this evidence 
does not constitute comparable evidence sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
III. Contract Requirements 
An 0-1 petition "may only be filed by a United States employer, a United States agent, or a foreign 
employer through a United States agent." 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(i). In addition, the regulation at 
8 
C.P.R.§§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) requires the petitioner to submit copies of any written contracts 
between the petitioner and the beneficiary or, if there is no written contract, a summary of the terms 
of the oral agreement under which the beneficiary will be employed, and an explanation of the 
·nature of the events or activities. The remaining issue addressed by the director is whether the 
petitioner, which appears to have filed the petition as the beneficiary 's employer, complied with 
the requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R.§§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) and (C). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 15 
The petitioner is self-described as a "floral design and arrangement business" with three employees. 
The record suggests that the petitioner will directly employ the beneficiary as a floral designer. The 
director issued an RFE on July 11, 2014, requesting, among other items, a contractual agreement 
between the petitioner and beneficiary specifying the term and conditions of the beneficiary's 
employment, or, if there is no written contract, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement, and 
an explanation of the nature of the events or activities in which the beneficiary will participate. On 
October 11 , 2014, the petitioner responded to the director's RFE as follows: 
With regards to the employment agreement with the intended beneficiary, although no 
formal agreement has been entered into, pending USCIS adjudication of the instant case, 
our agreed terms of employment are such that the beneficiary will provide her knowledge 
and expertise to her employer for the period of 36 months at a weekly salary of $1,200 with 
standard benefit package. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) and (C). The record suggests that the petitioner is the beneficiary's 
employer. Therefore, the petitioner is required, in the absence of written contractual agreement 
between the petitioner and beneficiary, to submit a summary of the terms of the oral agreement , 
and an explanation of the nature of the events or activities. Here, the director requested the required 
evidence, and the petitioner's response, that "the beneficiary will provide her knowledge and 
expertise to her employer" did not include an explanation of the nature of the events or activities in 
which the beneficiary will participate. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of its contract with the beneficiary, which the parties 
signed on July 1, 2014. We note that the date of the contract is inconsistent with the petitioner ' s 
statement in the October 1, 2014 response to the RFE that no formal agreement had been entered 
into between the parties . The new agreement defines the beneficiary's services as follows: "Artist 
agrees to use best efforts provide services as a Flower Designer for the benefit of Company in 
connection with various entertainment projects of the Company, as Company directs during the 
term of the Agreement and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (the 
'Services')." The explanation of the beneficiary ' s proposed services in this contract does not 
provide any more detail than the petitioner previously provided . The petitioner has not explained 
the nature ofthe events or activities as required under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). In light of the 
above, the petitioner has not overcome the director 's concern that the petitioner had not submitted 
a sufficient contract or oral summary of the terms of an oral agreement under which the 
beneficiary will be employed. 
IV. Translations 
Beyond the decision of the director , the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(3) states: "Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English." The translations in the record are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
accompanied by a single blanket certification from that does not identify any the 
translations to which the certification relates or the beneficiary and, in fact, references only a single 
"attached translation." This single blanket certification is not probative evidence that the 
translator(s) of each translation in the record has certified those translations. The translator of the 
translations the petitioner submits on appeal did not certify those translations. Because these 
translations do not comply with 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they have diminished probative 
value. Nevertheless , as the director did not raise this issue, we considered those translations above. 
V. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and the 
documentation submitted does not satisfy at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) or the 
comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). Consequently, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
the arts. 
Further, the petitioner did not submit copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary and an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) and (C). Although the petitioner has submitted a copy of its contract 
with the beneficiary on appeal, the contract does not provide sufficient detail of the terms under 
which the beneficiary will be employed. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigq1tion benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.