dismissed O-1B Case: Hair Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-R-P- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 9, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a banquet hall, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a master hair designer. 
It seeks to classify her as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa classification available to foreign nationals who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in the tield through extensive documentation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in 
the arts: a significant national or intemational award or at least three of six possible forms of 
documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the decision was based upon an erroneous conclusion of law 
and fact and that the evidence satisfies the regulatory requirements. In addition. it contends that the 
Director erred in not considering comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101 ( a)(l5)(0)(i) ofthe Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and ''distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of 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.'' 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner must submit evidence either of 
"significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy Award, an Emmy. a 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or of at least three of six listed categories of documents. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the listed criteria do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(iv)(C). 
The submission of documents satisfYing the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In Malter 
o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), we held that, "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.'' That decision explains that, pursuant to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, we "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.'' !d. Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides the requisite initial evidence, we then determine whether the record, viewed in its totality, 
shows sustained national or international acclaim such that the individual is prominent in the field of 
endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a master hair designer for private and professional 
events at its banquet facility. The record shows that the Beneficiary has been employed as a hair 
designer specializing in hair styling and coloring. Since 2009, she has worked at a hair salon which 
she owns with her sister in Spain. The Petitioner provided documentation of the 
Beneficiary's receipt of the following provincial and regional hairstyling awards in Spain: 
• 4th place and champion of color at the 
m Spain (2011) 
• Champion < at the 
in Spain (20 12) 
• Champion of Hairdressing in creative hair cutting and color techniques at the 
m Spain (20 12) 
• Best Stylist, Barber, and Salon,~ (2015) 
• 2nd place for ladies trial, technical color, 
haircut, up-do, 
(2013) 
• 2nd place for ladies trial, technical color, 
haircut, up-do, 
(2012) 
• Best Stylist and Salon, (20 12) 
• 1st place for ladies trial and gala evening hairstyles, 2nd place for creative ladies hairstyles, 
3rd place for ladies fashion haircuts, 
(20 12) 
• 2nd place for ladies trial (2011) and first place in woman trial, hair color, and best hair cut 
(2013) 
2 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
• 2nd place in gala evening hair style at 
in Spain (20 12) 
• 1st place for hair color, 3rd place for ladies trial, 
(20 11) 
The record also shows that the Beneficiary participated in continental 
and world level competitions 
sponsored by the between 2010 and 2012. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The issues presented on appeal and addressed in the brief include whether the Beneficiary meets the 
evidentiary criteria as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). and whether consideration of 
comparable evidence is appropriate as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). Absent evidence of a 
significant national or international award or prize like the Academy Award, the Petitioner seeks to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and recognition of achievements through evidence 
corresponding to at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). ·rhc 
Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied only two of the evidentiary criteria: 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) (published materials) and 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) (significant 
recognition for achievements). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence also meets the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l), (3), (4), and (6). As discussed below, we conclude that 
the record satisfies only one of the relevant criteria, 8 C.F.R § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B )(5). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in not considering its submitted exhibits 
under the "comparable evidence" provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C), because it claims that 
this regulatory criterion is not applicable to hair design. Specifically, it claims that the testimonials it 
provided from recognized experts in the hair design industry satisfy this criterion. We determine 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the letters submitted are comparable to the objective 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from world president of . an international 
hairdressing body. He confirms that the Beneficiary has taught in his organization and competed at 
many international hairstyling championships, including competitions. 
The record also contains a letter from president of the 
of the who attests that the Beneficiary has won awards in 
provincial and regional hairdressing competitions, and represented Spain at 
competitions. They describe her as an expert in the field with extraordinary skills. 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
As stated previously, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that comparable evidence 
"may'' be submitted if the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation. It is clear from the use of the word "must" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv), as 
opposed to the word "may" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C), that the rule, not the exception, is that the 
petitioner is required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Thus, the use of comparable evidence does not change the standard for the 
classification; a petitioner relying upon comparable evidence must still establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility by satisfying at least three separate evidentiary criteria as required under the regulations. 
The six criteria in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) are designed to cover different 
areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. It is the Petitioner's the burden to articulate 
why the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) do not readily apply and how the evidence submitted 
is "comparable.'' 
Here. the Petitioner has not established that winning a hair design competition is comparable to a 
lead or starring role for a production or event. For example, the record does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's participation was featured in promotional materials or highlighted in media coverage 
of the events. We also note that we have recognized the Beneficiary's receipt of awards in these 
competitions below, in our determination that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that achieving a 
favorable result in a hair design competition is comparable to providing services in a lead or starring 
capacity for an artistic production or event. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has served as 
a lead or starring participant in productions that have a distinguished reputation. In addition, the 
record does not demonstrate that she will prospectively serve as such a participant. At the time of 
tiling, the Petitioner submitted a job offer letter indicating that her duties as a master hair designer 
for its private and corporate events will include hair cutting, coloring, waving, straightening, and 
oiling. It did not, however, offer evidence that would distinguish her role as leading or starring 
within those upcoming events, and did not specifically claim or submit evidence to establish the 
distinguished reputation of those events. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published maferials by or about !he 
individual in major newspapers. trade journals. magazines. or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner provided several articles and press releases pertaining to the 
Beneficiary published in the newspaper and its successor publication 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. We conclude, however, that 
the Petitioner has not established that the evidence meets the plain language of this criterion, and we 
will withdraw the Director's favorable determination. Specifically, the record does not contain 
probative evidence showing that either publication qualities as a "major" newspaper, trade journal, 
magazine, or other publication. While the Petitioner provides an email from a representative of 
4 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
who estimates the publication's readership at 80,000 per week, 1 it does not offer 
evidence that this level of readership is commensurate with a major publication. In addition, the 
documentation provided indicates that it is a regional publication serving the particular locality of 
m province, Spain? The record further lacks circulation or distribution information 
relating to 
Evidence that the alien has perfiJrmed. and will pe!form. 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in not applying the ''comparable evidence" 
provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C), asserting that this regulatory criterion is not applicable to 
hair design. Specifically, it claims that the testimonials it submitted from recognized experts in the 
hair design industry, who attest to her awards at hairdressing competitions, satisfy this criterion. As 
noted above, we examine the evidence relating to the Beneficiary's receipt of these awards in our 
discussion of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). Further, it is the Petitioner's burden 
to articulate how the documentation in the record is comparable to the claimed criterion. The 
Petitioner has not established that winning a hair design competition is comparable to performing a 
lead, starring, or critical role for an organization or establishment. 
In addition, while the record indicates that the Beneficiary has worked for organizations including 
the salon the record does not include evidence suggesting that her role constituted 
a leading, starring, or critical role. Further, although the Beneficiary's salon has won customer awards 
in province, the record does not demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished 
reputation in the field. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has held a 
lead or critical role with respect to an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation. In addition, the record does not demonstrate that she will prospectively serve as such a 
participant for the petitioning organization. The Petitioner's offer of employment notes that she will 
be working in the role of master hair designer. It has not offered, however, information that would 
elucidate where her proposed position falls in the overall hierarchy of its organization or demonstrate 
her proposed impact on the organization. Finally, the Petitioner did not specifically claim or submit 
evidence to establish that its organization has a distinguished reputation. 
1 The email indicates the estimate is ''based on our print run of 25,000 copies per week, estimated readership per 
household/business and our online readership via our 'virtual' newspaper which we count using the daily page 
impressions." 
2 The publication's website indicates that it is dedicated to "the residents of the local communities that make up the 
region." http://www (visited Nov. 8, 2017, and incorporated into the 
record). 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
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 new5papers. or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence does not satisfy this evidentiary criterion. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted articles published in and 
mentioning the Beneficiary's results in the above-referenced provincial and regional competitions and 
her participation in sponsored international competitions, these materials do not report, f()r 
example, on her business revenue as evidence of commercial success, or otherwise provide any factual 
indicators to establish whether she has achieved "major commercial or critically acclaimed success'' in 
the hairdressing industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in not considering the above-referenced 
testimonial letters as "comparable evidence" to this regulatory criterion, which it contends is not 
applicable to hair design. Specifically, it argues that the provided testimonials from recognized 
experts in the hair design industry, as well as newly submitted reference letters from numerous 
clients who use the Beneficiary's services, satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that these letters are comparable to the objective requirements of this regulatory criterion. In 
addition to the letters from and the record includes a letter from 
President of the in Spain attesting 
that the Beneficiary has won awards in provincial and regional hairdressing competitions and 
represented Spain in · competitions. None of the letters indicate that 
winning those competitions is comparable to a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes in the field. In addition, although individual clients highly praise the Beneficiary's skills and 
abilities, these letters do not establish her record of commercial or critically acclaimed success in the 
field. 
Evidence that the alien has received sign(ficant recognition fhr 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 11•hich clearly 
indicates the author's authority. expertise. and knowledge of' the alien's 
achievements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner provided several testimonial letters and certificates confirming 
the Beneficiary's receipt of awards in provincial and regional competitions and her participation in 
competitions at the international level. We find that the awards received by the Beneficiary 
constitute significant recognition for achievements from organizations. Accordingly, we agree with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
.
Matter of A-R-P- LLC 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other substantial remunerationfor services in relation to others in the .field. as 
evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iv)(B)( 6). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it satisfies this criterion. It did not submit material relating to 
the Beneficiary's past salary or remuneration, such as letters from former employers, income tax 
forms, or pay statements. Instead, on the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated it will pay her an annual 
salary of $36,000 for the proffered position of master hair designer. It also explained it will pay her 
other compensation in the form of a "[c]omission of five percent (5%) of business net income if the 
business gross income reaches $1 million." We note that the Petitioner's job offer Jetter does not state 
that the Beneficiary has the opportunity to earn this commission in addition to her salary. It has not 
submitted documentary evidence to resolve this discrepancy regarding the Beneficiary's 
compensation. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Without such clarification, 
we are precluded from making an accurate assessment of her eligibility under this criterion. 
Assuming that the Beneficiary's compensation will be $36,000 per year as stated in the job offer 
letter, the record does not establish that this salary is considered high in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner provided comparative wage data relating to average or median wages of 
"Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists" in Arizona, the 
metropolitan area from the Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data Center's Online Wage Library 
(www.flcdatacenter.com), reflecting that the Level 4 prevailing wage is $28,912 per year. While the 
Beneficiary's salary exceeds the Level 4 prevailing wage for the Petitioner's area, the prevailing wage 
only reflects the average wage paid to all similarly employed workers in the same occupation in the 
same area. 20 C.F.R. § 655.10. This evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's proffered salary in the position of master hair designer is a "high salary.'' 
In sum, the record does not contain evidence of the Beneficiary's nomination for or receipt of a 
significant national or international award or prize, at least three of six listed categories of documents, 
or that consideration of comparable evidence is appropriate. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(C). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner 
has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 
0-1 visa classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-R-P- LLC, ID# 655090 (AAO Nov. 9, 2017)