dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10856895 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an artist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through receipt 
of a major, internationally-recognized award or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 , 
(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 implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an artist who works through the medium of oil painting, and has worked in the past 
as a professor teaching design courses. She earned a Master of Arts degree in 1996 froml I 
University, and has published textbooks on display and lighting design. She states that she intends to 
open an art studio in the United States and continue to create and exhibit her paintings. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to the display of her work at artistic exhibitions and her 
authorship of scholarly articles in her field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets four 
additional evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the 
Director's findings regarding the display and authorship criteria, but also conclude that the evidence 
of her work as a judge for the I I Design A ward is sufficient to meet the requirements 
of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, because she has met the initial evidence 
requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, we will not analyze her claims 
to any additional criteria, but will consider the entirety of the record in a final merits analysis below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
1 We note that the Petitioner submitted new evidence along with its brief on appeal. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been 
put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO 
will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
2 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that she meets that standard. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner's career in the arts includes painting and exhibiting her oil 
paintings as an artist, as well as teaching and writing about display design as an associate professor. 
Because she has indicated that she intends to focus on her painting in the United States, we will first 
consider the evidence pertaining to her career as an artist. 
We initially note that much of the evidence pertaining to the Petitioner's activity as an artist is in the 
form of articles that were posted on websites or web portals such as sina.com, sohu.com, and 
ifeng.com. In support of her assertion that these should be considered to be professional media or 
other major media, and thus show that the posting of these articles reflects recognition she gained 
through the exhibitions of her work and awards she received, the Petitioner submitted reports showing 
statistics for these websites, including the number of visitors and rankings. For each set of evidence, 
the Petitioner refers to these rankings and asserts that they show that the website "and its subdomains" 
are major media. However, we will not assume that statistics for an entire web portal such as these 
apply to each of that portal's "channels," let alone every article posted within that portal. 
In addressing the final merits determination on appeal, the Petitioner initially refers to the evidence of 
her receipt of awards for her paintinr. The record shows that the first of two awards she received in 
2018 was the I Award" at the I I Summer Exhibition in 2018. 
Evidence from the host venue,I I Art Museum, as well as articles posted on artron.net and 
sohu.net, verifies that out of the 280 artists who participated in the exhibition, a total of 30 received 
the same award as the Petitioner, and that two artists out of that group received an "annual award." 
The evidence therefore shows that the Petitioner did not receive the top prize from this exhibition, and 
that approximately one out of every nine artists who participated received the same award as she. In 
addition, while the Petitioner submitted evidence from the art museum's website which included a list 
of other exhibitions it has held since 2016, including th0 edition of the I O J Summer Exhibition 
held in 2017, this evidence does not demonstrate that it or the exhibition are prestigious or well-known 
such that this award was nationally or internationally recognized and brought acclaim of that scope to 
the Petitioner. Further, given the number of prizes awarded at the same level as the Petitioner's, this 
evidence does not demonstrate her place as one of the small percentage of artists at the top of her field. 
The Petitioner also submitted additional articles about the 20181 !summer Exhibition 
which were posted on the websites mentioned above, as well as sina.com. We note that one of the 
articles, initially posted on sohu.com, was later posted without change on two other websites, although 
different sources and editors are listed. This article described the opening ceremony and speeches, 
lists the names of the awarded artists, and indicates that more than 100 people attended the opening 
ceremony. However, as noted above, the posting of these articles on popular web portals is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner garnered national or international acclaim from this award, 
as the evidence regarding viewership or traffic is much too broad to provide information regarding the 
viewership of these individual articles. Further, the fact that the same words and pictures were used 
in each article does not reflect widespread interest in the exhibition, awards or artists, as the opinion 
of only a single source is provided. 
3 
The second award highlighted by the Petitioner was her designation as 1 I Artist" by the 
.__ ______________ _.!Education Organization Committee, also in 2018. An article 
from artron.net explains that the ten recipients of this award were selected by several rounds of online 
public voting, but the basis or criteria of this voting is not explained here or elsewhere in the record. 
It also indicates that as one of the top three vote-getters, the Petitioner signed a contract with a 
multimedia company through which she "will enjoy the global promotion of l _::J 
for half a year." In addition, the work of all ten recipients were displayed in an exhibition at theLJ 
I I Expo. However, a program from this expo shows that one of the Petitioner's works 
was included among that of many artists. Notably, hers was one of six works pictured on pageD of 
the Togrm, as part of a section titled "Original Artwork Display and Trading Area" which began on 
page of the program. Further, the program does not mention her selection as a l I 
Artist." Although the artron.net article shows that there was a ceremony for the ten winning artists in 
this competition, which included the signing of contracts by the three top winners, the evidence 
indicates that it was just one part of a much larger industry event. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence showing that she received a "Nomination Award" for her entry 
for the design of the l l Award" trophy in 2000. An article in Beijing 
Youth Daily indicates that hers was 1 of 4 design proposals selected out of30 submissions, and invites 
readers to submit votes. A later article published in the same periodical announces that another design 
was selected for the trophy after 500 votes were received and a panel of expert judges conferred. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence that the circulation of Beijing Youth Daily was about 
600,000 in 2004, suggesting that this contest and her status as a finalist brought her acclaim in the 
field, the relatively small number of submissions and votes received for this competition does not 
reflect widespread interest in either the Petitioner's design or her finalist status in the competition, or 
acclaim from either the general public or other artists. 
Regarding the public display of her artwork, in addition to the two group exhibitions described above, 
the evidence shows that the Petitioner's paintings were also displayed at other venues, in both group 
and solo exhibitions. These include solo exhibitions at thd I art center ( also referred to 
as the.....,.,=========r-----'Art Place") that took place from I DO 18, 
and thel IArt Space from I l 2018. As with the 20181 I 
Summer Exhibition, the evidence related to this first exhibition consists of two articles, one of which 
was posted on three different websites/web portals and appears to be attributed to the same individual 
or group. In addition, we note that several individuals are repeatedly named as participants or in other 
roles associated with these exhibitions. For example.__ _____ __,is named as the owner o~ I I I Art Space, but is also pictured and identified as a speaker at the I I exhibit 
and th~ I Summer Exhibition. The record does not include evidence which demonstrates that 
either of these solo exhibitions attracted other than local interest or garnered acclaim for the Petitioner 
and her work outside of her group of acquaintances and colleagues. Similarly, although a solo exhibit 
of her work d I Germany in 2015 might suggest broader acclaim for the Petitioner, the record 
shows that that exhibit also received only local attention from a German newspaper. 
Beyond art exhibitions in galleries and shows, the Petitioner's work was also displayed in printed 
publications. This includes four of her works pictured on two pages, along with a briefbiogra~ 
theC]2010 edition of Art Observation, which the evidence indicates is sponsored by theL__J 
Academy of Art. Although only partially translated, this evidence shows that the journal also 
4 
presented the works of other artists as well as art news and reviews. A similar article appeared in 
China Financial Culture inl 12019, but also includes critiques of the Petitioner's work from 
five artists, art professors and critics. Another article] described as a "theme essay" submitted by a 
reader and published in the D 2018 edition of the I magazine Community, describes the 
Petitioner's work and includes photographs of two of her paintings. However, the evidence regarding 
these publications does not show that they have a significant level of circulation or visibility, in the art 
field or the general public. Statistics froml I also known as the I I 
database, show that both Art Observation and Community appear to have limited annual circulation, 
and other metrics for the former publication do not compare fa~rably f° those provided in the record 
for another publication, Art & Design. Also, no information fro was provided regarding China 
Financial Culture, and the websites from which information about this magazine were provided do 
not appear to be linked to the magazine or the publisher. Although these materials contain favorable 
critiques of the Petitioner's work, the evidence does not show that they were widely read or distributed 
in the art world or in the general public, and thus are not indicative of acclaim at the national or 
international level. 
In addition to the media items discussed above which reported on exhibitions of her work or displayed 
or critiqued her work, the Petitioner also submitted two interviews of her in which she discusses her 
art and inspirations, both of which were posted to websites in early 2019. One of these interviews was 
conducted by the previously-mentioned! I and posted on sohu.com, while the other was 
posted on artron.net and attributed tol !Art Network Special Report." As we initially stated, we 
will not consider the evidence regarding the popularity of web portals such as sohu.com to reflect upon 
every material published within its channels or subdomains. Certainly the fact that interviews of her 
were conducted and published reflects some interest in her and her paintings, but the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to show that these interviews were widely read and thus garnered 
acclaim for the Petitioner at the national or international level. 
The record also includes reference letters from artists and others in the art world who provide their 
thoulhts on the contributions the Petitioner has made to the field. 2 I l an artist and Chairman 
of th_ I indicates that he met the Petitioner in May 2018, and was 
immediately attracted to and impressed by her painting. He describes some of her works, and states 
that she "has completely formed her own unique style of painting," and that her "innovations have 
been a priceless contribution to the art society ... "I I describes the Petitioner's paintings 
as "innovative and different from others," and notes that some have been published in magazines and 
exhibited at the 20181 ~xpo. Others also use the term "innovative" when describing 
her work, and similarly reference the articles on the websites and in the magazines discussed above. 
However, as we noted in our analysis of those articles, they do not show that the Petitioner has received 
sustained and widespread acclaim for her work. We farther note that most of the letter writers state 
that they personally know the Petitioner or have a connection wit~ !University, which she 
also attended, and thus do not indicate that any innovations she has made have been widely acclaimed. 
Also, although the statements in these letters describe her work as innovative, they do not indicate that 
others in the field have adopted elements of or been inspired by the Petitioner's work in creating their 
own art. 
2 All of the reference letters have been reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in this decision. 
5 
While the Petitioner did not claim the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), she did submit evidence 
of the commercialization of some of her work. A letter from an interior designer indicates that he and 
his colleagues "introduce[d] [the Petitioner] and her works to many of our high-end clients," and 
mentions two specific hotels to which her work was recommended. In addition to not explicitly 
indicating that the Petitioner's paintings were purchased for public display by these clients, these 
statements are not supported by documentary evidence such as contracts or sales receipts. Additional 
evidence regarding sales of her work include a contract with a silk production company planning to 
use the image of her work in their products, and an agreement regarding the auctioning of two of the 
Petitioner's paintings. However, the record does not include evidence confirming the sale of these 
items and the compensation received by the Petitioner. Therefore, this evidence is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that her work as an artist has been successfully commercialized to the extent that 
demonstrates acclaim in the field of art at the national or international level. 
We note although the Petitioner's paintings were included in Art Observation in 2010, the majority of 
the evidence regarding her work as an artist comes from the two years immediately preceding the 
filing of her petition. Even if we were to find that she has garnered national or international acclaim 
for her paintings, which per the above discussion we do not, we would not find that that acclaim 
occurred over a sustained period as required. 
Turning to the academic and design aspect of the Petitioner's career, the record shows that she 
authored textbooks in the area of display and lighting desi n which was sufficient to satisf the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). These,....;i:.:.:n;.::.;cl:..::u:.:::d.::..e....._ ________ ---r- ____ ---; 
two editions of (2007 and 2011 ), an_-.__ ____ __. 
A letter from the publisher of.__ ____ __, states that 5900 copies of the book were printed and 
that they "sold well and received very well accolades [sic] by teachers and students in professional art 
~-" Additional evidence indicates that it was one of nine textbooks listed for a course taught at 
L___JUniversity, and was available at several libraries in China. 
A similar letter from China Youth Press states that the 2011 edition ofl I was printed 
seven times for a total of 16,000 copies, and "has been widely used by related majors in more than 30 
colleges and universities in various regions of the company." In addition, a letter dated July 2010 
from China Youth Press, presumably referring to the 2007 edition of this book, states that it is a 
national-level planning textbook for general higher education and the 
~en_v_i_ro_n_m-en_t_a_l_a_rt_d_e_s~ign textbook o±1 I" As withl I 
evidence was submitted showing that it is available in several libraries in China, as well as at least one 
inl I but there was no direct evidence of its use as a textbook by universities other than 
I O !University. In addition, although a notice from the Chinese Ministry of Education regarding 
the topics and selection of textbooks for the~--------~ was submitted, it only describes 
the process for review and publication of textbooks, and does not indicate any special status afforded 
to selected textbooks. 
Some of the reference letters previously mentioned make reference to the Petitioner's work as a teacher 
and author, but do not offer specific additional information regarding this activity beyond the evidence 
discussed above. While that evidence indicates that the Petitioner had some degree of success as an 
author of textbooks in the design field, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that this success placed her 
in the small percentage of teachers at the top of the art and design field. 
6 
As stated in our brief review of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we find that the 
Petitioner's appointment as a judge for thd I Creative Works A ward in 2018 was sufficient 
to demonstrate that she served as a judge of the work of others in her field, specifically other designers. 
The evidence shows that she served on a panel that judged ten entries which included paper tube 
furniture buildin block to s, a zodiac calendar, and a storage box, and that this event was a part of 
~---------__.Week and held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the I I 
~-~ Chamber of Commerce. 
However, while her solicitation for participation in this event demonstrates recognition of the 
Petitioner's status as an expert in the field of design through her work as a teacher and textbook author, 
the evidence does not establish that this was an honor indicative of national or international acclaim 
in the field, especially considering her focus in the areas ofl landl !design. Althou~h the
1 Petitioner did conduct review in her field in this role, we note that the articles submitted about th 
I I Awards stress its focus on the I I and I I industries. For instance, the 
I I 2018 article posted to sina.com states that the aim is to recognize "the quality of human 
settlements and urban construction and encouraging the industry to continue to innovate." In 
describing the review process, it notes that the jldging c
1
mmittee includes "manyl I industry 
scholars, senior experts inl !building and housing, executives of brand development 
companies, senior executives of well-known consultants, and experts in brand building in thO 
I I industry." Another article posted to xinhua.net notes that the award ceremony included a round 
table discussion with executives from I ponstruction companies, development companies, 
Internet companies, andl I innovation companies," and that the Chairman of thel I 
Award Committee spoke about the need for transformation in the construction industry. Further, 
another article on xinhua.net which focused on the specific creative works award for which the 
Petitioner served as a reviewer acknowledges that the reviewers included artists, but notes that most 
of the designers participating have a background in architecture. This evidence does not show that the 
Petitioner garnered recognition in the design field through her participation as a jidge in trs e~ 
that her selection as a reviewer reflects a standing as one of the small percentage o andl______J 
designers at the top of the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS 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 her work as an artist and designer is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(2). 
7 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8