dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19407241 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 21, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through either 
evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or meeting 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, a citizen of Peru, is al I artist and I I painter. Because he has not indicated 
or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed that he met six of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser Awards; 
• (iii), Published material in major trade publications or other major media; 
• (v), Original Contributions 
• (vii), Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
• (viii), Leading or Critical Role 
• (x), Commercial Success 
The Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the evidentiary criteria pertaining to display of 
his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two 
additional criteria relating to his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards and published material. The Petitioner has not pursued his initial claim that he meets the 
criteria related to original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), performing in a leading or 
critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), or commercial success under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Therefore, we deem these issues to be waived and will not address these criteria in our decision. See, 
e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we concur with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the criterion related to artistic display. However, the record does not reflect 
that he has met the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion, 
and we agree with that determination. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that an individual 
is the recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural), that the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized, and that the plain language of the regulation also requires evidence that 
each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than simply for participating 
in or contributing to the event. The Petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims that he has participated in numerous competitions in Peru and received awards 
for excellence in his field, including 1st Place in the I I Painting Competition and 
1st Place in .__ _________ _. contest, both in 2001. In support of this assertion, the 
Petitioner submitted several newspaper articles discussing the competitions published in La Industria, 
which the Petitioner claims is the daily newspaper of the City o~ I The Petitioner also claimed 
that he was invited to participate in various other competitions, and that he also engaged in a 
subsequent display of his work with other prior winners of thel I competition in 1992. 
Counsel's letter of support also claimed that the Petitioner won 3rd Place in the I I I !Painting Competition, but no documentation to support this assertion was submitted. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
claimed awards were nationally or internationally recognized, and requested additional evidence in 
support of his eligibility under this criterion. 1 In response, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
the websites www.eldominical.pe and www.larepublica.pe in support of the claimed national 
recognition ofthel !contest, as well as a screenshot of the website www.peru.com which the 
Petitioner claimed displays photos of his artwork. No additional evidence pertaining his ~ 
.__ _______ _.' award the.__ ________ __, Painting Competition was provided. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the record was insufficient to demonstrate that 
any of the claimed awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of 
endeavor. The Director determined that absent evidence that the awards received coverage in major 
media or major trade publications, the level of national or international recognition of the awards could 
not be determined. Further, the Director noted that the record lacked documentation from the awarding 
entities detailing the nature of the competitions. 
At the outset, we note that the Petitioner did not submit certified English language translations for any 
of the documents it submitted in support of this criterion. As noted by the Director in the RFE, all 
foreign language documents must be accompanied by a full translation that the translator certifies 
1 See 6 USC1S 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 
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 full 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 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 submitted 
before the Director is accurate and thus supports his claims . 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on thd !Painting Competition, and asserts that 
the Director's finding that this award lacked national or international recognition was erroneous . In 
support of this assertion, the Petitioner submits a letter frortj I Cultural Manager 
and organizer for thel I Painting Competition from 1991-2005 . I I 
provides additional information about the contest, explaining that it was sponsored byl._ ___ __.pnd 
th~ lin conjunction with the Municipality o~ I where it took place. In 
her letter, she states that the Petitioner was the 1st place winner of the contest in 2001 and the 3rd 
place winner of the contest in 2000. According to contest terms and conditions submitted with her 
letter, the contest was open to Peruvian citizens and resident foreigners, and allowed each entrant to 
submit one work of art, with the "techniques used and topics on which they are based" to be freely 
chosen . I lalso confirmed that the competition has been covered in La Industria , as 
previously asserted by the Petitioner. 2 
The Petitioner relies on this evidence, and the perceived reputation of the I I company 
nationally and internationally , as sufficient evidence to establish that the competition is nationally 
recognized in Peru. The Petitioner also points to a letter froml I Chairman of the Jury 
of the competition that was previously submitted, who stated that the Petitioner had won numerous 
national awards and was recognized for his work throughout Peru. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination. Although the Petitioner demonstrated that 
he received the above-referenced awards, he did not submit sufficient documentary evidence that the 
awards garnered national or international-level media coverage to demonstrate that his prizes or 
awards satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. The record indicates that the 
I I Painting Contest received media coverage in La Industria, which appears to be a 
local newspaper based in the city o~ I Despite the assertions of the Petitioner andl I 
who claim that the publication has significant media reach, there are no objective circulation figures 
for the publication showing that its news coverage is indicative of national or international recognition. 
Moreover , as previously noted, the articles submitted from La Industria were not accompanied by the 
requisite certified English translations , and therefore have little probative value. 
2 Unlike the evidence submitted prior to adjudication , all foreign language material submitted on appeal was accompanied 
by certified English translations as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
4 
Moreover, despite the Petitioner's assertions regarding the prestigious reputation of the contest, the 
record is insufficient to support such claims . We acknowledge the supplemental documentation 
submitted on appeal provides additional information regarding the contest, including the fact that it is 
open to all Peruvian citizens or resident foreigners . However , while the Petitioner provides evidence 
indicating the winners were selected from a pool of national contestants , he has failed to produce 
evidence that this award is recognized at a national level. Selection from a national pool of candidates 
does not necessarily impart national significance to an award. Again, media coverage by newspapers 
specific to one location or region, such as La Industria , is insufficient to reflect the award is nationally 
or internationally recognized. 
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. 3 For 
these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies 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 field for which classification 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) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must satisfy multiple evidentiary 
requirements. First, the published material must be about the Petitioner and the contents must relate 
to the Petitioner's work in the field under which they seek classification as an immigrant. The 
published material must also appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The final requirement is that the Petitioner provide each published item's title, date, and author and if 
the published item is in a foreign language, the Petitioner must provide a translation that complies with 
the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. Upon review of the record, 
we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted several magazine and newspaper articles from 
publications including Aparte, Ellos y Ell as - Caretas, Enfoque (the Sunday Supplement of La Industria ), 
El Comerica, La Industria , Expreso, and Ophelia accompanied by certified English translations. Noting 
that the record did not establish that these articles were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, the Director requested additional evidence regarding these 
publications and their circulation statistics. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted evidence of a Y ouTube video entitled I I 
which the Petitioner claimed was aired on Peruvian television inl 12015. He also submitted 
additional evidence, such as excerpts from the website www.peru.com regarding his work and an article 
published in Peru Shrimp. 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that while the Petitioner asserted that the submitted articles 
were published in major media or professional or major trade publications , he did not supplement the 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, supra at appendix, 
5 
record with evidence such as published circulation statistics . The Director also declined to afford 
evidentiary weight to the Petitioner's Y ouTube video. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to properly analyze information regarding the 
media. The Petitioner submits a letter from the Peruvian Radio and Television Institute, which is 
addressed to the Petitioner and indicates it is in response to the Petitioner's request for "a copy of the 
I !program where you were interviewed onl I 2015 ." Although the letter states 
that the aforementioned program "aired from 2015 to 2019," and provides link to download a copy of the 
program, there is no information regarding where this program was aired, the nature of this interview, or 
the extent to which the Petitioner was interviewed. 
This regulatory criterion requires "published material" in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media and "the title, date, and author of the material." Video clips are not published material in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Absent additional evidence, the Petitioner did not establish that the screenshot of the 
Y ouTube video constitutes published material about him relating to his work. The Petitioner did not 
provide a transcript or other evidence detailing or showing the content of the material. 
The Petitioner also provided no information related to the distribution data of the newspapers or 
magazines in which the presented articles were featured to establish this published material has a 
national rather than a regional reach within country. Publications with only a regional reach are not 
generally considered to be major media and the Petitioner has not established these publications are 
professional or major trade publications as required by the regulation . The Petitioner submitted no 
additional evidence that might amount to major media, professional publications, or major trade 
publications, and on appeal acknowledges that "[a]dmittedly we did not provide circulation statistics 
for the publications where articles appeared about the beneficiary and his work," and that "we made 
every effort to secure circulation statistics without success." Although the Petitioner asserts that El 
Comerica "is the oldest and largest national newspaper in Peru" and provides a report from Reporters 
Without Borders commenting on the Internet traffic for the El Comerica Group, this documentation 
alone does not demonstrate that El Comerica is a professional or major trade publications or other 
major media as contemplated by this criterion . Additionally, the Petitioner's assertions regarding the 
publication La Industria are not supported by independent, objective evidence . 
Further, as noted by the Director, USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the 
publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No . CV 06-5105 SJO FMOX, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. 
July 6, 2007) ajf'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on a 
company's self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). Additionally, as the Director further noted, there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey , 
540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
In light of the above, the evidence discussed above does not meet the plain language requirements for this 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
6 
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 his 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 he 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7