dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12483771 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 19, 2022 
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 )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence that she meets 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 petitioner 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 a visual artist. She obtained a bachelor's de lastic arts with a ma·or in painting 
from the University.__ _______________________ __. inl I 
Venezuela in 2002. 
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 her participation as a judge of the work of others in her 
field and artistic display. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria 
relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and membership in associations in 
the field, and provides additional evidence in support of these assertions. 1 The Petitioner has not 
pursued her initial claim that she meets the criterion related to published material about her under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), nor does she contest the Director's decision relating to this criterion on 
appeal. Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived and will not address this criterion in our decision. 
See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "failed to analyze the comparable evidence, nor they [sic] indicate they 
had done do." Prior to the appeaL however, the Petitioner did not rely on comparable evidence to establish her eligibility. 
Because the Petitioner has submitted evidence which she asserts supports her claim to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii), she cannot demonstrate that these criteria do not apply to her occupation as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). We will therefore not further address her claim that the Director failed to analyze comparable evidence. 
2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that she "has been recognized internationally with reco nition awards and 
prizes for her artistic work." The Petitioner asserts that her receipt of th~e_'~--~-----~ 
A ward" from the Venezuelan Chapter of the International Association o ~----' in 2010 is a prize 
of national recognition, noting that an article published in El Universal Caracas discusses the award. 
She also submitted documentation showing her receipt of various "prizes," including a 
.__ ______ ___,Honor Mention" from the I I Museum and a "prize" certificate for 
"Outstanding Participation" inl I' by thel !Museum froml I 
.__ ____ ___,I The record also contains several certificates of recognition acknowledging exhibition 
and her donation of work from the cities o~ I and I I along with articles discussing her 
receipt of various other prizes including the I I Prize" for I f from 
Museum of Contemporary Art.__ ____ ~------,-, 
At the outset, the Petitioner did not submit certified English language translations for each of these 
documents, all of which were foreign language documents. As noted by the Director in the request 
for evidence (RFE), all foreign language documents must be accompanied by a foll translation that the 
translator certifies pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). That provision states: "Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a foll English language 
translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." The 
record reflects that both at the initial filing and in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
presented an English translation for each submitted document but did not provide any certificates of 
translation. The English translations do not contain a certification from the translator certifying that 
the translations are complete and accurate, or that the translator is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. In fact, none of the translations even identify the translator. Because 
the Petitioner did not offer properly certified English language translations, we cannot meaningfully 
determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports her claims. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the record was insufficient to demonstrate that 
any of the prizes or awards claimed by the Petitioner were nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in her field of endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her receipt of the I I 
.__ ______ _.Award from the Venezuelan Chapter of the International Association ot1 I 
in 2010 satisfies this criterion, noting that the award received news coverage in El Universal Caracas, 
which she claims is a national news outlet with "a daily circulation of about 150,000." This article, 
like the award certificate, is not accompanied by a certified English translation and therefore has little 
probative value. Moreover, the Petitioner's assertions regarding the publication and its circulation 
statistics are not supported by independent, objective evidence. 
Further, the Petitioner has not presented evidence that this award, or any of the other accolades she 
claims to have received, are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
3 
in the field. 2 Although the Petitioner provides an excerpt (in English) from the I I website 
on appeal which provides the history of the organization, it does not discuss the .......... ! ---~--~I 
A ward or the criteria for receiving such an award. There is insufficient evidence demonstrating that 
the prize awarded byl Ito the Petitioner in 2010 is nationally or internationally recognized in her 
field of endeavor. 
Moreover, despite providing uncertified translations of articles froml I discussing her receipt 
of the I I Prize for I I' the Petitioner did not present any supporting 
evidence documenting her receipt of the award. 3 
Although the uncertified translations have no probative value, they also do not support the Petitioner's 
claims on appeal. The Petitioner did not establish that the prizes and awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field, or that the reporting entities enjoy a national or 
international audience. 4 For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this 
criterion. 
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). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided articles published in El Mundo, which indicated that 
she was affiliated with the I I Association and collaborated with the I I 
Organization andl I City Council for the I 12009. The Director acknowledged 
that she was mentioned in these articles, but noted that there was no evidence or other indication that 
either of the organizations had bestowed membership on the Petitioner as contemplated by this 
criterion. To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is 
based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 5 
The El Mundo articles relied on by the Petitioner are accompanied by uncertified translations. Because 
she did not provide certified translations of the documents, they are of little probative value. 6 
Additionally, as noted by the Director, while the articles suggest her affiliation with these 
organizations for work on certain projects, no documentation or other evidence demonstrating that she 
is a member of either of these organizations is contained in the record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to previously submitted documentation discussing the purpose and 
mission ofl I Organization. While we acknowledge these assertions, we again note that the 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (noting 
relevant considerations in determining if the award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or 
international significance in the field). 
3 See id. 
4 See id. 
5 See id. (providing an example of admission to membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate 
that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon 
recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original research). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
4 
documentation referred to by the Petitioner was not accompanied by certified English translations. 
Moreover, the documentation does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is a member of this 
organization, nor does it outline the membership requirements, if any, for such an organization. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that a previously submitted certificate from the Government of 
the Ministry I I granting her recognition as the Director of 
I I in I I Venezuela satisfies this criterion. In support ~o-f,....t...,...h-is-a-ss_e_rt_i_o_n_, -th,....e_P_e-ti,....t1.,....· o-n-e~r 
submits an excerpt from I I which provides a general overview of the I I 
indicating that the museum wasl ~nd holds a collection of over 5,000 works by 
prominent Venezuelan and international artists. 
As noted previously, the certificate referred to by the Petitioner is a foreign language document 
accompanied by an uncertified English translation, and thus is of little probative value. Nevertheless, 
the translation provided indicates that the certificate is "thanking his gesture, for the donation of one 
of his pieces of art 'mirrors. "'7 There is no indication that this certificate confers membership upon 
the Petitioner as contemplated by this criterion, and the Petitioner provides no evidence of the 
membership requirements for this organization. Although the Petitioner is recognized as "Director," no 
further context with regard to the nature of this title or position has been provided. In addition, the 
Petitioner did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding 
achievements of any of the referenced organizations' members. 8 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, we disagree. The 
Petitioner must show that she has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that she 
actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 9 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided uncertified translation of three certificates she claims 
demonstrate her participation as a judge for various exhibits. 
The record contains a certificate from ' and reco nizes the Petitioner "for 
her valuable artici ation as a ·u " in the exhibition 
.__ ________ __. 
.__ _________________ ~ 
The Petitioner provided no additional information regarding 
or the nature of the exhibition referred to in the uncertified translation of the 
certificate. As a result, we are unable to determine whether her "participation as a jury" was in the 
same or allied field, which she claims is visual arts. 
7 We note generally that this ce1iificate and many other uncertified English translations for the Petitioner's various 
certificates and awards reference her in masculine terms such as "he" and "his" throughout the record. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
9 See id. 
5 
The Petitioner also provided a certificate from reco the Petitioner for her 
"valuable participation as a guest juror" in the exhibition L..._ __ _,....--------,.........J' Again, the 
record contains no additional information defining the nature of~------~ or the type of 
exhibition referred to in the certificate, which again was not accompanied by a certified translation. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided a certificate from Museum of Latin American Art, Buenos Aires, 
recognizing the Petitioner for her "outstanding participation as a Jury" in the ~---------' 
The record contains no farther information explaining the nature of this "donation," such that we can 
determine whether her service as a "jury" involved judging of the work of others in the same or allied 
field of specialization. 
The uncertified translations of the above-referenced certificates do not meet the plain language 
requirements of 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(3). Although they purport to acknowledge the Petitioner's service 
as a 'jury" or 'juror," the Petitioner did not provide evidence corroborating the certificates from these 
organizations, such as documentation or letters detailing her responsibilities as a jury member for the 
referenced exhibits or donation, or any other evidence regarding these events and how they were 
judged. Without this evidence, we cannot determine that her role as a 'jury" or 'juror" involved 
judging the work of others in her field. Without certified translations and supporting evidence 
clarifying her role, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the Director's finding for this issue. 
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). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, we disagree. In order to 
meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the venues where her work was displayed were 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. 10 The record contains a list of her claimed individual and collective 
exhibitions, identifying 12 individual exhibitions and 20 collective exhibitions at various locations in 
Spain and Venezuela. The record, however, is accompanied by uncertified translations of only three 
certificates, two issued by~--------~ and one issued byl I which recognize her 
"participation" in "exhibitions." The certificates do not clarify the nature of the referenced exhibitions 
or the extent of her "participation" in such exhibitions. Further, because the Petitioner did not provide 
certified translations, she did not establish that the submitted documentation accurately supports her 
claims. 11 
Moreover, the Petitioner also submitted uncertified translations of an "Undefined Work Contract" 
between the Petitioner and the Museum of1 I as well as a contract between her and 
I l in support of this criterion. Although the contract with the Museum of.__ ______ __, 
indicated that she would serve as an "honorary counselor," no farther information regarding her roles 
or obligations to this organization was submitted. Moreover, the contact between her and thel I 
was vague and did not define her role. Absent additional evidence, the evidentiary purpose of these 
documents is unclear, as they do not indicate that such agreements were related to the artistic display 
10 See id. 
11 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
6 
of her work. These documents do not demonstrate that her work was displayed at artistic exhibitions 
or showcases. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies this criterion, and we withdraw the 
Director's findings for this issue. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets any of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), of which she must meet at least three to satisfy the initial evidence 
requirement for this classification. As this determination is dis positive of the appeal, we reserve and 
will not address the Director's separate determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she 
seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, as required by 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(5). 12 
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 of her work 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
12 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
7