dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-Y-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 16, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an artist and art teacher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she fulfills at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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. 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 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 principle 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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the 
initial evidentiary criteria: display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record reflects, for example, that her work was displayed at exhibitions in 
Russia entitled 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the display criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that she meets four additional criteria, discussed below. We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that she satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien'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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner presented her membership card for the 
of Russia and this organization's bylaws. Section 3 .1 of bylaws states: 
can be professional painters, graphic artists, sculptors, masters of decorative 
and applied art, photo artists, designers, architects, art historians, gallery and museum workers, 
journalists, other persons who have professional interests in the field of culture and art that have 
reached the age of 14 .... " In addition, section 3.2 indicates: "Membership in the is voluntary. 
Individuals are admitted to the membership of the on the basis of personal appeal in 
writing." The record also includes a document entitled 
explaining that those seeking membership must complete a questionnaire 
and provide a photograph, an autobiography, and information about their work, "including a list of 
exhibitions, catalogues, publications, reproductions of 5-10 works for different periods of creativity." 
This document further states that "[r]ecommendations from museums and galleries will also be 
useful." The aforementioned information, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that reqmres 
"outstanding achievements" of its members pursuant to the language of this criterion. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted the ' a description of the rating 
categories, a list of members of the and an August 2017 
certificate from the chairman of • assigning her an artistic rating of "SB (a formed professional 
artist)." The description of the rating categories the Petitioner provided states: 
I - an artist of the world fame, tested with time (for more than a century), IA- a world 
famous artist, IB - a high-class professional artist with remarkable organizational 
skills, who is popular and in demand. 
2A - a high-class professional artist with a bright creative individuality, 2B - a high­
class professional artist, recognized and in demand with the art-market and public. 
3A- a professional artist with a recognizable individual style, 3B - a professional artist, 
recognized and asked for in the art market and by the public. 
4A - an established professional artist with creative potential, 4B - an established 
professional artist, who is in demand in the art market. 
SA - a professional artist with creative potential, SB - a formed professional artist. 
The remaining categories are "6A- an artist with creative potential, 6B - a forming professional artist, 
7 - an amateur artist with perspective evaluation of specialists, 8 - an amateur artist, 9 - an artist­
beginner, [and] 10 - an artist-scholar." The record, however, does not show that the Petitioner's "SB" 
"formed professional artist" rating rises to the level of outstanding achievements. 1 Nor has the 
Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that applicants ' achievements are judged 
by recognized national or international experts. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that 
she meets this criterion. 
1 We note that the description of rating categories includes multiple levels above the Petitioner's "SB" rating that reflect 
higher levels of artistic achievement. 
3 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing her work 
as an artist and teacher. The Director considered this documentation, but found that it was not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance in the field. 
For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the letters of support from 
colleagues in the field and an expert in Russian legal matters were insufficient to meet this criterion. 2 
However, as discussed below, the letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the 
record include adequate corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the nature of specific original 
contributions that the Petitioner has made to the field that have been considered to be of major 
significance. 
With regard to the Petitioner's artwork, chairman of the branch of the 
, contended that she has achieved "success in the field of visual arts" and 
that "she can create her artworks in many different ways and on different media - canvas, glass, stone." 
In addition, asserted that the Petitioner's "technique of making paintings on the glass is 
of the greatest interest since it is unique and unrepeatable." Likewise, a Russian 
teacher-psychologist and poet, stated: "[The Petitioner] has created a huge amount of artworks. I 
especially want to mention the paintings that are made on the surface of glass. To create them you 
need concentration, attention to color separation, love of animals and great patience." While 
and praised the creativity of the Petitioner's glass paintings, the evidence is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that her artwork rises to the level of contributions of major significance in 
the field. For instance, the record does not show that the Petitioner's art has influenced other 
professionals in the visual arts fields, that any of her specific works are widely viewed as important 
pieces of contemporary art, or that her original work otherwise constitutes artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, the record contains letters from several educators discussing supplementary arts training 
programs taught by the Petitioner at their schools. For example, deputy of the general 
director at . a network of kindergarten schools in Russia, asserted that 
the Petitioner ''conducted master classes on the theme ' Artistic development of children, Open talent 
in every child" for that company 's staff and that her training helped teachers "increase the interest of 
children in the art classes." Similarly, director of College of Small Business · 
indicated that "classes conducted by artist [the Petitioner] allowed college students to 
2 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
improve their skills and abilities to improve their academic performance" and "to consolidate their 
skills in composition, drawing and color separation." 
In addition, an English teacher at Public School in 
stated that the Petitioner "conducted free courses as a volunteer on additional art education for children 
from 6 to 10 years old in the Public School and that her program combined "classical art 
school and modern technology." further noted that this program helped children 
to "significantly improve the grades of academic achievement in common subjects at school." Another 
educator at that school, indicated that the Petitioner taught fine arts to disadvantaged 
children and that her program helped children with learning disabilities to improve their academic 
performance. 
The record also includes a letter from a attorney, explaining that "obtaining a 
license for [the Petitioner's] supplementary education program in the Russian Federation is not 
required." further stated that it was legal for Russian schools to use the Petitioner's 
"educational programs without payment." 3 
The statements and information from the aforementioned educators and Russian legal expert, however, 
are not sufficient to show that her art programs have widely influenced the field beyond the schools 
where she taught or have otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. 
The language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Petitioner's original contributions be "of 
major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting her students and their schools' arts 
programs. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had 
not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). Without 
sufficient evidence demonstrating that her work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she satisfies this criterion based on her former role as Head of Design and 
Deputy of General Director for . a Russian company that designs automated teller 
machines (ATMs) and customer-activated terminals. For the reasons discussed below, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical 
role for or that this organization has achieved a distinguished reputation. 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 4 Regarding 
3 The Petitioner provided this letter in response to the Director 's request for evidence (RFE) under this criterion asking for 
"Contracts with companies using [the Petitioner's] products" and "Licensed technology being used by others." We note, 
however, that the aforementioned types of evidence were only two examples among many listed in the RFE for this 
criterion. The Director's RFE did not limit the Petitioner regarding the types of evidence she could present under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
4 See users Policy Memorandum See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted 
with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-
5 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 5 
The record includes the Petitioner's "Book of Employment History" identifying the various jobs she 
has held in Russia since 1992. Pages 10-11 of this book list her position as "Deputy of General 
Director: The Head of Design Department" for but do not describe her specific 
duties. In addition, while the Petitioner offered a letter from the event director at , a 
client of expressing gratitude for "the design decisions" she made on projects as leader 
of her company's team of designers, this letter does not show how her role leading various design 
projects for was leading or critical role for The Petitioner also submitted 
a list of her job duties as "Head of Design Department" for Although the Petitioner 
contends that this list was "obtained from the employment contract with job description," she did not 
provide a copy of the aforementioned employment contract containing that list. Nor has 
she presented a letter from containing detailed and probative information that specifically 
addresses how her role was leading or critical for that organization. 6 Furthermore, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that such a letter from her former employer is unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(l). For these reasons, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for 
In addition to not demonstrating that she performed in a leading or critical role for the 
evidence is insufficient to show that this organization has a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner 
presented multiple letters of appreciation from clients thanking the company for 
developing signage and displays for their ATMs and bank branches. For example, an April 2009 letter 
from the Deputy of General Director for the Department of Banking Technologies at an 
exclusive distributor of , expressed gratitude for "joint participation in the 
presentation of ATMs at the for banks." In addition, the Petitioner offered 
lists of the largest banks in Europe and Russia, and noted that several of these banks were 
clients. She also provided a November 2006 letter from stating that 
radio stations "Europe Plus" and "Retro FM" announced news "about the realization by the company 
of the project on creation of self-service banking zones across Russia by the order 
of the The record, however, does not include the transcripts of these radio stations' 
news announcements to demonstrate that their coverage was indicative of the company's distinguished 
reputation. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted information about from its website, 
but USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, 
aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). The aforementioned information and evidence is not sufficient to 
set apart from others in the industry or otherwise reflect its distinguished reputation. 7 
For the above reasons , the Petitione r has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion . 
14 l 0 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://vvww.uscis. gov/policymanual/HTML/Po licyManua l.html. 
5/d. 
6 Id. (noting that "8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) states that evidence of exper ience 'shall ' consist of letters from employers"). 
7 Id. (defining Merriam -Webster 's Dictionary definition of "distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence). 
.
Matter of V-Y-K-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner initially presented documentation from the Federal Tax Service of Russia reflecting her 
earnings as "Deputy of General Director: The Head of Design Department" for in 2010 
and 2011. In addition, she submitted information showing average monthly "wages of employees in 
a full range of organizations in general" for the Russian Federation and average salary levels "for the 
position Deputy General Director in Russia." 8 The Petitioner, however, must submit evidence 
showing that she has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration relative to others in 
her field and not just a salary that is above average in her field. Furthermore, because the Petitioner's 
field is art design, offering "wages of employees in a full range of organizations in general" for the 
Russian Federation does not provide an appropriate basis for comparison in demonstrating that her 
earnings constitute a high salary relative to "others in the field." 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided current wage information from 
msk.jobcareer.ru indicating the "average monthly salary for position Deputy of General Director by 
region" and "average monthly salary for position Art Director in She also 
submitted a letter from discussing the "forms used to confirm an individual's income in 
Russian Federation," how wages are "calculated at commercial organizations in Russia," and "[h]ow 
to determine the official salary for positions ... in Russian Federation" in comparison with "similar 
statistic[s] in the United States." In addition, asserted that "the amount of annual income 
received ... by 'Deputy of General Director, Head of Design Department' ... is significantly higher 
than the average wage for this position in Russia, as well as in or m region." 
The Petitioner's reliance on average salary information compiled from current job openings is not a 
proper basis for comparison. First, she must provide evidence showing that she has earned a high 
salary relative to others in the field rather than just a salary that is above average in her field. Second, 
the salary information she offered from msk.jobcareer.ru is limited to job vacancies and excludes data 
for filled positions. Furthermore, the information from msk.jobcareer.ru relates to current job 
openings rather than those from 2010 and 2011 when the Petitioner worked as head of the design 
department at 
The Petitioner must present evidence showing that she has earned a high salary or significantly high 
remuneration in comparison with those performing similar services in the field. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus 
other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to 
others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer' s salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, the Petitioner 
has not established that the wage information she presented constitutes an appropriate basis for 
comparison. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
8 The Petitioner did not demonstrate that deputy general director positions are indistinguishable in Russia, such that salaries 
are consistent regardless of the field of endeavor. 
Matter of V-Y-K-
III. CONCLUSION 
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 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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 and recognition of her art and design work are indicative of the 
required sustained national or international acclaim or that they are 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 she 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 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she 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 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-Y-K-, ID# 2731295 (AAO Apr. 16, 2019)