dismissed EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 23, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an architect, 1 seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who· can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which 
necessitates either 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that show that 
he meets at least three often regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In the appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence but 
argues that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet the lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion, the membership criterion, the published 
material criterion, the leading or critical role criterion, or the commercial success criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
1 Initially, the Petitioner identified himself as both an architect and an artist, using both terms to qualify his position in 
Part 6 of Form I-140. However, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asked to be 
considered solely as an architect. The Director rendered his decision on that basis. 
Matter of Y- W-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those "individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and 
the recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then it 
must provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that a beneficiary meets at least three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), affd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th·Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion based upon having received at least 
three awards for his architectural designs. The plain regulatory language requires that the Petitioner 
show not only that he has won prizes or awards, but that these accolades are nationally or 
internationally recognized, and are awarded for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner specifically claims to have received the following: 
• An award granted by the 
Petitioner's work entitled 
• Recognition as one of the 
· • Awards for 
• The Gold Award for the 
and Awards for 
As evidence of the award for his work entitled 
the Petitioner submitted a 
for the 
and 
a four-page document entitled According to the latter, 
the exhibition was created for purposes of showcasing various architectural designs in a variety of 
categories. The and the Government organized the exhibition, 
soliciting works from architects throughout China. According to the 
paper, the organizers received 11,200 works and selected 644 for purposes of display. 
Based upon the evidence in the record, the 
is one of the 644 works chosen to be displayed at the exhibition. The 
reflects the Petitioner's selection for that purpose, 
specifically stating "after being evaluated and examined, your work ... has been collected." The 
Petitioner provided no documentary evidence, however, demonstrating that selection of his work for 
display at this exhibition constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner specifically states that his recognition as one of the 
is not a nationally 
recognized award" but maintains that it is important. However, this criterion requires evidence of 
the receipt of awards and that such awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. Based upon the Petitioner's admission, this honor does not meet the 
requirement of being nationally or internationally recognized. Further, the record contains no 
documentary evidence explaining the nature of the acclaim or demonstrating that this recognition 
either equates to or resulted in the receipt of an award. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
The Petitioner refers to a variety of "awards for and awards for 
which he received between 2003 and 2014. The Petitioner pr<?vided a list of 
architectural designs which appeared in the from 2003 to 
2014. The list includes projects upon which the Petitioner served as one of the chief designers such 
as ' in 2003 and "Administrative 
Office Building of ''in 2005. Based upon the evidence 
in the record, rather than constituting awards for architectural design, the 
3;ppears to represent a collection or catalog of architectural projects. The Petitioner 
provided no documentary evidence of having received any nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for any of the designs which are displayed in this publication and no evidence demonstrating 
that the publication constitutes an award. 
The record includes a certificate, "The Gold A ward for the 
been presented to 
which appears to have 
by the 
The award indicates that it was granted for the 
According to the Petitioner, the 
is his company. However, the Petitioner provided no evidence demonstrating 
the award criteria, the awarding entity, or that the award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which, require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion by virtue of his membership in three societies. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement 
as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on 
employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, 
. grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not 
satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
The Petitioner claims to be a member of the following associations: 
• • 
• 
The Petitioner submitted a letter of appointment from the which indicates that he was 
appointed "an executive member" of the coun~il. The Petitioner included some background 
2 The Petitioner has alternately translated this document as and 
We use the latter translation throughout this decision. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
information on the that identifies it as a voluntary "non-profit social organization" 
composed of real estate development, construction, engineering, and architectural companies. The 
organization's articles of association distinguish between individual and organizational members. 
According to the articles, ordinary members must have "certain experience," and "professional titles 
at intermediate level or higher" or a "published thesis." The association also permits student 
members who must be in their third year of college and senior members who "once acted as 
honorary chairman, advisor or vice-chairman" of the association. The articles do not indicate that 
demonstrable, outstanding achievements are required for membership, indicate who judges 
prospective members, or include a category for executive members. 
The Petitioner provided his certificate of membership for the which identifies him as "an 
individual member," and "Articles of Association." The articles describe the association as a 
non-profit legal society comprised of "workers from technology .... " Membership requirements are 
set forth in article eight and include 1) support for the articles of association, 2) willingness to join 
the society, and 3) significant achievements in the professional field. The articles do not further 
define "significant achievements," and do Rot indicate who determines whether prospective 
applicants have met such requirements. 
The record includes the Petitioner's membership certificate for the which identifies him 
as a "member of the council." The record also includes a three-page document entitled "A Brief 
Introduction to which describes the 
as a "social and academic organization" comprised of "experts and scholars engaged in 
art creation, research and teaching in the field of painting," and lists the membership requirements 
for the association. The prospective member must 1) support the articles of association, 2) have 
exhibited works at two consecutive exhibitions, 3) have made outstanding achievements, and 3) have 
published professional works and made outstanding achievements in . academic activities. The 
articles do not, however, define or provide examples of what might be considered "outstanding," or 
explain who judges prospective applicants. 
Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not shown that any of the associatiOns require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. As a result, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's membership in the 
or satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. The materials must relate to the individual's work in the field for 
which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion because a number of his architectural designs have been 
featured in the In general, in order for published material to 
meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-W-
the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because 
of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 3 Furthermore, the 
regulation requires that "such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation." 
The Petitioner provided portions of the from 2003 through 
2012. The appears to be a catalog that includes numerous architectural designs from 
various architects. The Petitioner appears as a collaborator on a number of pieces. However, the 
Petitioner has not explained the nature of the and, other than indicating that it was 
"compiled by the has not 
identified, its purpose. The Petitioner has provided no information regarding the readership or 
circulation of this volume. Further, as the appears to include architectural designs, with 
descriptions of the works, the evidence does not demonstrate that the publication or any of the 
material contained therein, is about the Petitioner or his work in the field of architecture. The text 
associated with the pictures merely describes the images. Apart from his name appearing among the 
groups of designers, the Petitioner is not discussed, and there is no other information pertaining 
specifically to him or to his work in 
the field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence which satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the plain language of this criterion. Upon a review of 
the record, we agree that the Petitioner has provided evidence of his work displayed at artistic 
exhibitions. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted a certificate showing that 
was shown at the 
and that other of the Petitioner's works were shown at exhibitions such as the 
at and the 
As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the 
plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion by virtue of having been assigned in lead or 
critical roles for five organizations or establishments. A leading role should be apparent by its 
position in the organizational hierarchy and the role's matching duties. A critical role is evident by 
its overall impact on the organization or establishment. Further, the evidence must show that the 
3 .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)
Matter of Y-W-
organizations for which the Petitioner worked have reputations marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 
The Petitioner claims to have performed the following roles for or with the entities identified: 
• International Advisor of 
• Researcher for the 
• President of the 
• Board member of the 
• Founding Partner and President of the 
also styled the and the 
Relying on two testimonial letters, the Petitioner claims to have been an international advisor of 
described as an architecture 
critic, exhibition planner, and stone 
"advisor of public art of the 
further qualification or description. 
culture planning supervisor, refers to the Petitioner as an 
without 
An unsigned letter of recommendation from the. 
provided a general description of the subject matter and 
physical locations of the Petitioner's work. The author stated that the Petitioner "presided over the 
design of more than 35 projects" in areas such as 
and others. While the author identified the ,Petitioner as the "founder of the 
he did not identify the nature of the position that the Petitioner occupied or the 
institution for which he worked while overseeing the various projects. The second letter made no 
reference to overseas ' 
The testimony of the Petitioner's references is not without weight; however, we are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. See 
Matter of Caron lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Thus, the content of references' 
statements and the bases of their remarks regarding the Petitioner's roles are important 
considerations. Specifically, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory affirmations. 1756, Inc . 
v. Att'y Gen. ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). However, without supporting 
evidence from the various cultural arts centers, the information provided by the references remains .1 
uncorroborated. 
As evidence of his position as a researcher for the 
the Petitioner supplied an appointment letter. 
which briefly describes the background of the 
The Petitioner also provided a document 
noting that it is 
The document indicated that "nearly 
but did not identify the 
Further, according to this histo~ical description, 
"directly administrated [sic] by the 
300 professionals" currently work at the 
specific number associated with the 
4 We will use the shortened designation, throughout this decision. 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- W-
"the is today a comprehensive new institution centered on 
artistic creation and research and combining the functions of exhibition, exchange, collection, 
traini~g, promotion, and publication." The Petitioner offered no information on the role of the 
"researcher" within this association or established that either the 
or the of this organization has a distinguished reputation. 
To establish his role with the 
the Petitioner supplied an appointment letter and a three-page description of 
the The appointment letter indicates that the Petitioner is named the President of the 
for a term of three years. The three-page document identifies the "as a joint 
institution of contemporary architecture" which creates a "big platform for arts and culture" through 
avenues such as exhibitions. The indicates that "the will apply for 
architecture Grade a (specific project)" and hopes to attain this designation within three years. The 
Petitioner identified no duties associated with the position and did not indicate what the designation 
"architecture Grade a" signifies nor did he demonstrate that this enJoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner offered his appointment letter as evidence of his board membership of the 
However, he provided no information 
describing the role of a board member or the nature of the organization or its reputation. 
To substantiate his role with the the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
company, signed by and a business license. Additionally, the Petitioner refers to the 
letter from to corroborate his involvement with the company. These documents would 
appear to support the Petitioner's claim to be a founding member . of the 
However, the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence to establish that this eqtity has a 
distinguished reputation in 
the architectural industry. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion by virtue of having signed a number of 
architectural contracts, in addition to having been responsible for 45 recognized designs. However, 
this criterion pertains specifically to the performing arts and requires documentation of the 
Petitioner's commercial success evidenced, for example, by box office receipts. As an architect, the 
Petitioner does not work in the performing arts. Therefore, this criterion would not apply in the 
instant circumstance. 5 
5 We have considered the evidence provided under the high salary or other significantly high remuneration criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(ix). However, the documentation did not satisfy that regulatory criterion. The Petitioner submitted 
six architectural contracts, five of which contained the name of the Petitioner's company as the designing party. While 
8 
Matter of Y- W-
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least three 
evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the 
filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that. the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-W-, ID# 17790 (AAO Aug. 23, 2016) 
the contracts identified the total fee associated with the design work, the Petitioner supplied no evidence of the salary or 
remuneration which he received from these projects. Further, the Petitioner provided no comparative data to 
demonstrate that any salary or remuneration that he received is considered high relative to the salaries or remuneration 
received by other architects operating in the field. 
9