dismissed O-1B Case: Interior Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30929017 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an interior design business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a senior interior 
designer of extraordinary ability. To do so, the Petitioner pursues 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, 
available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially denied the petition and subsequently affirmed 
her decision on motion, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's satisfaction 
of the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in the arts: 
nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international award, or at least three of six possible 
forms of documentation . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) of the 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." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(ii). Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a 
beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence 
either of nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed 
categories of documents. See 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) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
According to the Beneficiary's resume, she earned a master's degree from I of 
Architecture and Engineering in 2017 and has since been working as an architect and interior/exterior 
designer as CEO ofl lstudio inl !Russia. The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting documentation, seeking to employ the 
Beneficiary for a period of three years as a "senior interior designer" to "plan, design, and furnish the 
internal space of rooms or buildings" in collaboration "with many other professionals, such as the 
project manager, other interior designers and contractors." 
Within its initial submission, the Petitioner provided its job offer letter, signed by the Beneficiary, for 
the position of senior interior designer to "undertake various design projects and see to them from 
concept to completion, work closely with architects, decorators, constructors, and designers, supervise 
the work in progress carefully." Within its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), it 
explained that it seeks to have the Beneficiary perform services "in the Interior design projects for 5 
residential buildings inl IFlorida in thel !community (implementation July 2023)." 
A. Extraordinary Ability in the Arts 
The Petitioner does not claim the Beneficiary's nomination for, or receipt of, significant national or 
international awards or prizes under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(A). Instead, it maintains that she meets 
at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(J)-( 6). The Director 
concluded the Petitioner established the Beneficiary's eligibility for only two criteria, published 
materials in major media under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) and significant recognition under 
8 C.F.R. § 2 l4.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Beneficiary also satisfies the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) and (3), and requests that we consider comparable evidence 
for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 1 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that it had not established the Beneficiary's eligibility 
under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6), related to high salary. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. 
See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 
(BIA 2012)). 
2 
Upon review, we find that the Director's decision reflects a careful and thorough review and analysis 
of the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence. Therefore, we adopt and affirm the Director's 
decision with the added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and 
affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely 
confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals 
in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
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)(J). 
This regulatory criterion requires both that the beneficiary has performed and will perform services as 
a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(]). As evidence, the Petitioner must submit documentation of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements. Id. Although the 
Director found that the Beneficiary has performed as a leading participant in productions or events 
with a distinguished reputation, she determined that the record lacks evidence that the Beneficiary will 
do so. The Petitioner has not identified a specific error related to this criterion but rather broadly 
disagrees with the Director's conclusion that it has not satisfied the criterion. 
As stated, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary will be working with its organization on 
approximately five interior design projects while in the United States, in residential buildings in 
I I Florida in the I I community. We agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner did not establish how the evidence reflects the Beneficiary's anticipated role as a lead 
participant in the various design projects, or their distinguished reputation. The job offer letter does 
not contain information suggesting that the projects will have a distinguished reputation. For instance, 
it does not remark on the past successes of the Petitioner or other professionals with whom the petition 
indicates the Beneficiary will collaborate, such as project managers or contractors, or otherwise remark 
on the expectations for the projects. 
In addition, the Director acknowledged that, although the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters 
in support of this criterion, it did not demonstrate how they qualify under any of the evidentiary 
requirements. To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit evidence in the form of critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements.2 Advertisements, publicity 
releases, and endorsements are promotional materials. 3 Endorsements are public facing and serve a 
marketing purpose. 4 This exhaustive list does not include unpublished testimonial or recommendation 
letters. 5 
2 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual M.4(D)(2) (appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
3 
Further, the Director noted that although the Petitioner's RFE response included job offer letters from 
I I for the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment in the role of interior designer with those organizations, those job offer letters are dated 
after the date the petition was filed on December 27, 2022. 6 The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C .F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
at the time of filing the petition the Beneficiary would be performing services at _____
I I Moreover, the Director noted that the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence to establish that it is authorized to act as an agent for those other 
architectural/interior design organizations for the purposes of filing this petition. 7 
In sum, the Director concluded that the Petitioner has neither identified, nor documented through 
submission of the evidence prescribed by regulation, the Beneficiary's forthcoming lead or starring 
role in events with a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner does not provide any new arguments 
which overcome the Director's determination. Therefore, the Petitioner does not establish that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed, and will peiform, 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). 
A leading or starring role for an organization or establishment should be apparent by its position in 
the overall organizational hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical role is evidenced 
from the beneficiary's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The beneficiary's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or 
establishment as a whole. 8 The Director determined that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
documented or explained how the Beneficiary will, prospectively, perform in a lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
As previously stated, the petition and the RFE response indicate that the Beneficiary will work for the 
Petitioner over a three-year period. The Director found that the record does not include evidence 
explaining how the Beneficiary's role as a senior interior designer rises to the level of a lead, starring, 
or critical role for the petitioning company. The submitted evidence does not describe how she will 
contribute to the petitioning company overall, or how her proposed position fits within the hierarchy 
of the organization. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence demonstrating that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. As previously noted, the plain 
language of this criterion requires the submission of evidence in the form of newspapers, trade 
journals, publications, or testimonials. 
Further as mentioned above althou h the Petitioner's RFE res onse included job offer letters from 
for the Beneficiary's proposed 
6 We note that although the letter froml is dated May 30, 2022, it indicates "this letter is in reference to 
your candidature submitted to our company in June 2023." 
7 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.3(C). 
8 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(D)(2) (appendix). 
4 
employment in the role of interior designer with those organizations, those job offer letters are dated 
after the date the petition was filed on December 27, 2022. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )( 1 ). Regardless , the evidence does not establish 
how, in her proposed role as an interior designer on projects, she will perform in a leading role for 
those organizations or be responsible for their success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of a "critical role." 
In light of the above, the Director concluded that Petitioner has neither identified nor documented 
through submission of the evidence prescribed by regulation , the Beneficiary's forthcoming lead, 
starring, or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner does not 
provide any new arguments which overcome the Director's determination. Therefore, the Petitioner 
does not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 . 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
In its statements provided on appeal and motion, the Petitioner maintains that we should consider 
comparable evidence for this criterion, because it claims that this regulatory criterion is not applicable to 
interior design. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that "[i]f 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." 9 Thus, a petitioner 
must demonstrate why the regulatory criterion does not pertain to a beneficiary's occupation and how 
the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's "scholarly articles published in internationally 
recognized scholar[ly] journals clearly evidence [the Beneficiary's] record of major critically acclaimed 
successes." 10 The Petitioner's initial submission included evidence that the Beneficiary's articles were 
published in several journals, including Design Review and the proceedings of several professional 
conferences in the field, as well as in the 2nd International! IThe 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's articles are a 
comparable indicator of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes to title, rating, 
standing in the field, box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings. There is no evidence that 
the articles reported on the Beneficiary's record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in 
the field, or that the articles themselves reflect the same caliber of expertise and recognition as a record 
of such successes. The Petitioner does not provide any new arguments which overcome the Director's 
9 Petitioners should submit evidence outlined in the evidentiary criteria if the criteria readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation. However, if the petitioner establishes that a particular criterion is not readily applicable to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may then use the comparable evidence provision to submit additional evidence that is not 
specifically described in that criterion but is comparable to that criterion. See 2 USCJS Policy Manual , supra, at M.4(D)(3). 
10 We note that the Beneficiary's articles were considered by the Director in her determination that the Beneficiary met the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
5 
determination. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion 
through the submission of comparable evidence. 
B. Valid United States Employer 
Finally, the Petitioner does not appear to be a valid United States employer. As noted above, 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.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(i). The Petitioner does not claim to be an agent 
and must, therefore, be a legal United States employer. However, publicly available documents show 
that the Petitioner is no longer a legal entity. The website of the Florida Secretary of State, 
Corporations Division, shows that an entity with the Petitioner's name was registered in 2020, but that 
company filed Articles of Dissolution, voluntarily dissolving the company onl I2024. 11 As 
a result, the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner is a legal entity or a valid United 
States employer eligible to seek 0-1 classification for the Beneficiary. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(2)(i). As 
stated, the Petitioner must satisfy all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit from the time 
of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(I). Here, it has not made such 
a showing. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets at least three 
of the claimed criteria. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least 
three criteria, we also need not provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary 
has sustained national or international acclaim, has received a high level of achievement, and has been 
recognized as being prominent, renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. See section 
101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iv). 12 Accordingly, we reserve these 
issues. 13 Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is a valid United States employer. As a 
result, it has not satisfied the requirements for the extraordinary ability nonimmigrant classification. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11See Business Search, State of Florida Secretary of State website, 
https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch~--------------------~ 
(last visited April 22, 2024, and incorporated into the record of proceedings). 
12 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(D). 
13 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7. 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6