Artist, Designer, And Inventor

The Petitioner met the criteria for published material (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) through features in Art in America, Artforum, and The New York Times. Additionally, the criteria for judging (iv) and artistic exhibitions (vii) were previously conceded as met. The Director's decision was withdrawn because the Petitioner successfully established the minimum three criteria required for further evaluation.

The Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria: published material, judging the work of others, and display of work at artistic exhibitions. Specifically, the record included documentation of work displayed at artistic exhibitions at the [redacted] and the [redacted]. Because the initial evidentiary threshold was met, the Director's previous denial was withdrawn to allow for a final merits determination.

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not demonstrate a major, internationally recognized award or meet three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the Director erred, concluding the Petitioner met three criteria: 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) (published material), 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) (leading/critical role), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) (artistic display). Specifically, the Petitioner's work with D- and its digital fashion designs displayed at C- and T- exhibitions were deemed her own artistic work. The matter was remanded for a final merits review to determine if the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is at the very top of her field.