dismissed EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF 1-K­
' 
DATE: FEB. 7, 2019 
Ap PEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140,.IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
i 
The Petition.er, an architect, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
Se:e Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8U.S.C.§11'53(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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied ti1e petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
Se~ 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). -- . 
Ori appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, claiming that he meets four of the ten criteria 
un.rer 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
i 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants if: 
(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, 
1 
(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. 
Th~ term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small per~entage 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. 
.
Matter of 1-K-
§/204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a i:najor, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
111ust provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
I 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, shows 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small 
pbrcentage at the very top of the field of ende~vor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if 
f4lfilling the required number of criteria; considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
s~e also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); R(jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the 
pfinciple that we 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
According to his January 2017 statement, the Petitioner seeks to enter the United States to work as 
ari architect and to "reach [his] maximum as an artist." He claims extraordinary ability in the field of 
"architecture and design," and offers evidence showing that he studied architecture and design in his 
native country, Georgia, and in Portugal. In 2017, while in the United States, he worked as a 
dJsigner and architect for , a design studio in · New York. 
The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not demonstrate, that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). · As such, he must provide 
documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to 
satisfy the initial evidence requirements. While he asserts on appeal that he meets the following four 
criteria, the record does not support this assertion. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
award5for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner offers documentation confirming his receipt of the· following: 
(1) A third prize "for the best architectural project of 
Georgia ," issued by 
2 
New Head Office in 
.
.
Matter of 1-K-
(2) A "First Pize [sic]" for" 
of Georgia; and 
(3) A second place recognition m the 
issued by 
" issued by the 
as relating to 
m 
While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the above accol~des are "held on international level," he 
has not shown that he satisfies this criterion. Even assuming that the contenders for the prizes came 
from different parts of the world, to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must present evidence that 
the prizes are recognized in the field on a national or international level. Although the record 
contains some information about the award issuing entities, it lacks sufficient evidence confirming 
the awards that the Petitioner received enjoy national or international· recognition for excellence in 
the field of architecture and design. For example, he has not presented materials showing that 
publications or news outlets with a national or international audience reported on the awards or their 
recipients, or other documentation confirming that these honors are accepted in the fieid as national 
or international recognition for excellence. The Petitioner has therefore not met this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien ·s work in the fieldfor which class[ficat ion is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date. and author of the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because his designs and brief descriptions of the 
designs were posted on Online printouts from the website indicate that it is a 
digital architecture and design magazine, has "4 million readers and 450,000 newsletter subscribers," 
ai;id, was named one of the top 100 design influencers in the world by magazine. Even if this 
publication qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media, the Petitioner 
has not shown that he satisfies this criterion. 
; 
Specially, the record reveals that the "has received [the Petitioner's projects] from 
our DIY submissions feature, where we welcome our readers to submit their own work for 
publication." The Petitioner has not shown that such self-promotional submissions constitute ' "[p ]ublished material about [him] ... relating to [his] work in the field," as required by the criterion. 
Moreover, he has not provided information relating to the author(s) of the brief descriptions of his 
designs posted on as required under the regulation. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) . 
Tre record includes a number of project spec books from the design studio listing the 
P~titioner as the designer or architect. The evidence confirms that builders have completed some of 
tqese projects. T_he project spec books are materials the studio cre_ated for its clients , offering 
3 
.
Matter of I-K-
recommendations on the building and design of the projects. The Petitioner has nof demonstrated 
that his work in the project spec books was intended for anyone other than the clients, or that the I • 
s~aring of these materials between the studio and its customers qualifies as "the display of [his] work 
. : . at artistic exhibitions or showcases," as required under the regulation. 
Similarly, the · Petitioner has not established that a social media posting meets this criterion: 
Specifically, he claims that he satisfies this criterton because and 
reposted his photographs on their Instagram accounts. He, however, has not pointed to 
aµy legal authority, such as case law or regulatory or statutory language, supporting the position that 
businesses' social media accounts constitute "artistic exhibitions or showcases." 
The Petitioner also asserts the buildings that have been completed based on his designs satisfy this 
criterion. While these projects, located on the streets of New York City, confirm his work as an 
architect and designer, they are not displays at artistic exhibitions or showcases. · Examples of 
qpalifying display_s include those that are held at galleries , museums , or other artistic venues . In 
light of the above, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
. . 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration 
for services. in relation to others in the.field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
,, 
The Petitioner's tax documents show that in 2017 , he earned $39,150 in "wages, salaries, tips" and 
"business income." He has not explained if his entire earnings derived from his work as a designer 
and architect. Assuming such to be the case, the record, which does not include comparative 
compensation data in the field, is insufficient to show that he "has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field ," as required by the 
regulation. 
dn appeal, the Petitioner explains that his earnings have .been affected because he is not a permanent 
resident in the United States. This criterion requires evidence of his "high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration," without taking into consideration of his immigration status. While 
it ,might be true that the Petitioner's income has been impacting by a number of factors, it remains 
t~at he has not established his salary or remuneration · is qualifying under the regulation. He has 
therefore not satisfied this criterion. i 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Based on the evidence in the record, including reference letters and other documentation not 
specifically_ discussed in this decision, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted the required 
initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten 
cliteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 f.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, upon a review of the record in its entirety, we 
conclude that it does n_ot support a finding that he has established the acclaim and recognition 
required for this classification. · 
4 
Matter of 1-K-
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price; 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of 
his academic and professional accomplishments is indicative of the required sustained national or 
internationa! acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-,723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 
has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 
. 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the. Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 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 immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural 'Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-K-, ID# 2000665 (AAO Feb. 7, 2019) 
i 
)