dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admi11istrptive Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: APR 3:0 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~:~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as an artist. The director determined that the petitioner had not met the 
requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that the petitioner's evidence had met the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vii). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional documentary evidence. The petitioner asserts 
that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (vii). In 
addition, the petitioner correctly points out that the standard of proof in this matter is "preponderance of 
the evidence." The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the 
petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements required by the statute and regulations. 
Therefore, if the statute and regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit 
that evidence. In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he or she·is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. !d. at 376. In the present matter, the documentation submitted fails to demonstrate by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner meets the original contributions of major significance 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and, therefore, that she satisfies the regulatory requirement of 
three categories of evidence. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if--
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration 
and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court 
took 
issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With 
respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may 
have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two 
criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 
1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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. 
The petitioner has submitted published material about herself in major media and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Accordingly, the director's finding that the 
petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory criterion is affirmed. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her artistic qualities and activities in the field. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted documentation of her participation in various art exhibitions. 
With regard to the petitioner's participation in art exhibitions, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion for display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence relating to or even meeting the display criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner 
also meets this criterion. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because 
separate criteria exist for artistic display and original contributions of major significance, USCIS 
clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless 
the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at 
least three separate criteria. , 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of the letters of support, but found that they 
"were insufficient to establish that the petitioner's work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance." In addition, the director stated that references' assertions regarding an individual's 
ability and vague claims of contributions were less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
The director further stated that the record lacked sufficient evidence showing that "the petitioner's 
art has enjoyed a larger following" or that "her art has made a significant impact within the 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore, no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petitioner's field." The director therefore concluded that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility 
for this regulatory criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner points to the letters of support from experts in the field as evidenc;e that she 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The petitioner states: "The evidence submitted 
included: dozens of letters, touting the petitioner's expert abilities, from artistic and cultural experts, 
as well as internationally renowned figures in the public art world, including a household 
name, leader and authority on public art." The issue to be determined for this criterion, however, is 
not whether the petitioner possesses "expert abilities" as an artist. Rather, the letters of support and 
other documentary evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's original work equates to artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence must rise to the 
level of original artistic contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of 
major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
With regard to comments concerning the petitioner's work, the petitioner did not submit a 
letter of support signed by Ms. or e-mail correspondence directly from Ms. reflecting those 
comments. Instead, the petitioner submitted a November 22, 2011 e-mail from herself to counsel 
stating: 
Hi Dear [counsel] ... 
There are some good thinks [sic] to send for you after the Roma show ... I am sending now some 
of the part [sic] ... 
* * * 
send me a message and join my interactive show with hers [sic] message ... she wrote 
that[:] 
"Start dreaming of love. First imagine a mirror in which you see and love yourself. That love 
you create, will go all over the world, and make people feel good. Yes. You should start with 
dreaming love, in the Dream Love Room [the petitioner]" 
The petitioner failed to submit primary evidence documenting 's message to the petitioner. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Absent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
documentation that primary and secondary evidence of Ms. ,'s original communication is either not 
available or nonexistent, the petitioner's November 22, 2011 e-mail to counsel cannot be relied upon as 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Regardless, Ms. 's message appears to provide artistic advice 
to the petitioner rather than commenting on the petitioner's specific original contributions in the 
field. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes information about ' and her artistic 
endeavors (such as Ms. ), but none of the submitted material 
demonstrates the petitioner's original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, the petitioner submits online promotional material concerning her J 
' at in New York on August 18, 
2013. The submitted documentation pertaining to her digital display includes an online 
event description and "Comment Wall" listing one person as "Attending" and 26 as "Not Yet 
RSVPed." The petitioner also submits August 2013 news articles about the project in the Turkish 
language, but the articles were unaccompanied by certified English 
language translations as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 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. /d. Regardless, the August 2013 art project and news 
articles post -date the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that 
come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." /d. at 176. Accordingly, the petitioner's 
August 2013 project and the articles about it cannot be considered as evidence to establish her 
eligibility at the time of filing. 
The petitioner asserts that the "quality of the experts who vouched for [her] international stature in 
her field is enough to demonstrate it is 'more likely than not' she has made a significant impact in 
her field." Although the quality of the experts and the petitioner's stature in the field are important 
considerations, the issue here is whether the experts' statements and the other documentary evidence 
submitted demonstrate that the petitioner's original artistic contributions were of major significance 
in the field. 
The petitioner further states: "It would be contrary to reason to find that an artist would enjoy 
international exhibits and media coverage if her work were not imparting a significant contribution 
to her field of endeavor." The petitioner's appellate brief, however, does not identify any 
"significant contribution" to the field that had been imparted by the petitioner at the time of filing, or 
any specific works of art by her that equate to artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
Arranging exhibits to display her artwork and garnering media coverage to promote that work are 
not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence of specific artistic 
contributions that were of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
t'age 1 
With regard to the letters of support that comment on the petitioner's abilities and artistic endeavors, 
as some of the letters contain similar claims addressed in other letters, not every letter will be 
quoted. Instead, only selected examples will be discussed to illustrate the nature of the references' 
claims. 
a photographer and the Art Director of the 
Massachusetts, collaborated with the petitioner on a project coordinated by the 
nonprofit organization. Mr. stated: 
[The petitioner] is an exciting and productive artist with immense energy and a wealth of 
ideas. She shows her work regularly in both Turkey and the United States. Much of her 
recent work is interactive involving the public who come to see her work. She creates a 
space where participants are encouraged to discover their own artistic talents and in doing so, 
make efforts to become part of the larger art work that encompasses the talents and creativity 
of all the participants. [The petitioner's] work celebrates both the act of individual artists and 
the surprising results of collaborative endeavor. [The petitioner's] interactive installations 
bring together individuals from many cultures and all walks of life to create works of art that 
transcend all personal and cultural boundaries. She demonstrates that the creative act is 
intrinsically a necessary part the healthy social fabric of a culture. 
Through her creative work, I believe [the petitioner] has demonstrated to be an artist with 
immense talent and good will whose work captures the imagination of viewers and 
participants. [The petitioner's] art work has made and continues to make significant 
contributions to the advancement of an international art community. By having permanent 
residency status in the U.S. she will make significant contributions to the betterment and 
advancement of Turkish and American art communities. I for one look forward to continue 
our artistic relationship .... 
Mr. comments on the interactive nature of the petitioner's artwork and asserts that her work 
"has made and continues to make significant contributions to the advancement of an international art 
community," but he does not provide specific examples of the petitioner's creations that have 
influenced the field or otherwise constitute original artistic contributions of "major significance" in 
modern art. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
, the publisher of located in , New York, stated: 
I have been working in the visual arts in New York for over 35 years .... I have known [the 
petitioner] since 1992 to be a respectful, upstanding citizen, friend, and colleague. 
For almost two decades [the petitioner] has been working closely with and 
I have promoted her artwork in print and online 
at http: Her artwork is incredibly thought provoking 
and it has been my pleasure to offer her exhibition opportunities and full page articles in our 
magazine. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Mr. states that he has promoted the petitioner's artwork and offered her exhibition 
opportunities, but he fails to provide specific examples demonstrating that the petitioner's original 
work is of major significance to the field. Although Mr. 's comments indicate that the 
petitioner is building a reputation in the New York art community, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that she has already significantly influenced other artists in the field, that any of her 
specific works are widely viewed as masterpieces of modern contemporary art, or that her original 
·work otherwise equates to artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
, "a Turkish-born New York-based curator," stated: 
I have choreographed and organized dozens of global exhibitions and events that explore 
everything from the intersection of abstraction and figuration to the significance of high and 
low art. My projects focus on artists, such as [the petitioner] who project an entirely different 
perspective within the cultural sphere of the art world. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] work stands as evidence of her extraordinary qualities as an artist. Her 
work shows extremely high standards of artistic ability. Her artistic creation reflects a 
passion for life, growth, and compassion for human nature, a necessary quality which must 
be employed by an artist, and which comes naturally for [the petitioner]. 
In addition to her first-rate artistic talent in producing great works of art which can elevate 
and inspire people, [the petitioner] has also nurtured great respect in her relationships with all 
the people she has worked in collaboration with. She has successfully met all deadlines and 
has shown much self-discipline in the context of her work as well as proving that she is a 
reliable and indeed also extraordinary as a player for team-work necessary to implement a 
successful creative art project. 
Ms. points to the petitioner's "extraordinary qualities as an artist" and her "extraordinary" 
capability as a team player in artistic collaborations. Merely repeating the language of the statute, 
however, does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava , 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates , Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 WL 188942, at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Ms. fails to 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's artwork has significantly influenced the field of 
modern art or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
Head of Section, United Kingdom and Americas, 
epublic of Turkey, stated: 
I have met rthe petitionerl during my post (Oct. 2003 - Nov. 2006) as the Director of the 
in New York. She applied to have an exhibition at the 
Gallery which was a very nice opportunity for us to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
promote her work as she is one of the extraordinary expressionist artists of our country. The 
petitioner ' s] solo exhibition " (in which she was inspired by the 
took place between dates 8-30 Se tember 2006 in 
New York). The 
exhibition was very successfUL One of the press memoers t 
commented "This passionate, sensitive, and generous artist soul clearly and freely lets 
her emotions flow into her paintings. " 
Her works simply have no barriers of culture and language and highly interactive with the 
people and environment. [The petitioner] contributes greatly to the community with her art. 
She is giving art classes to the children voluntarily and supports many charities. Her works 
are well known in Turkey and internationally. She made a special interactive performance 
for which received prominent acclaim. 
Ms . comments on the petitioner's exhibition at the 
in New York, the multicultural appeal of the petitioner's work , the 
petitioner 's art classes for children, and the petitioner's support for charities such as but 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has substantially impacted the visual 
arts field, has influenced the work of other artists, or otherwise equates to an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. 
Director of the in Turkey, stated: 
[The petitioner's] uniqueness stems from the fact that she engages the viewer in an 
interactive display of her art and talent. [The petitioner] is passionate about engaging the 
audience. She is truly one-of-a-kind because she brought a new perspective, a new way of 
seeing and displaying art to Turkey. Her exhibitions are a complex entanglement of 
permanent art with fleeing ideas and thoughts. She has the viewer not only embrace the art 
but also the movement, understanding and production of that art. One of her goals in 
creating is to improve the situation of the things she is passionate about. She uses art to 
contribute to education and charitable causes, and to bring attention to things that are 
important to her . 
[The petitioner's] success is extremely important because she succeeded with non-traditional 
art in a traditional society. Her work has made a lasting impact in the Turkish art world by 
paving the way for modern art and interactive displays. [The petitioner] broke through the 
typical stereotype of a Turkish artist and created a way to display her talents which 
transcends the barriers of culture and language. Through her, the public has developed a 
new-found appreciation for art. Her talent is limitless and she has had exhibitions throughout 
the world. 
[The petitioner's] style is similar to m that they are both unoredictable, 
innovative and instantly recognizable. LThe petitiOner] is seen as the Turkish 
because they both extremely stand out in an already diverse universe . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Ms. comments on the petitioner 's uniqueness, passion, novel perspective , and other artistic 
qualities, but does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's artwork has impacted the 
field in the same manner as that of the influential artist to whom Ms. 
specifically compares the petitioner, or of how the petitioner's work was otherwise majorly 
significant to the field. In addition, although Ms. asserts that the petitioner's "work has made 
a lasting impact in the Turkish art world by paving the way for modern art and interactive displays ," 
there is no documentary evidence showing the extent of the petitioner's influence on other modern 
artists in the field or indicating that the field has specifically changed as a result of her original work 
so as to demonstrate the major significance of her contributions. For example, the petitioner did not 
submit statistical evidence demonstrating a significance increase in interactive art as a result of her 
exhibitions. Notably, the promotional material for the petitioner's November 2012 exhibition at 
which the petitioner provided , indicates that the petitioner's work "referenc( es] such 
artists as and " The record lacks promotional material for other 
artists suggesting that they reference the petitioner's style. Again, going on record without 
supporting docum entary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matt er ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. It is not enough to be a talented artist and 
to have others attest to that talent. An individual must have demonstrably impacted her field in order 
to meet this regulatory criterion. 
Chief Executive Officer, Curator, and Design Consultant of 
Turkey, stated: 
I was blessed to see [the petitioner's] one of a kind work multiple times throughout my life 
and happy to know her. [The petitioner] has contributed greatly to the art world in Turkey 
and throughout the world. I cannot name another person who has such unique ability to 
invoke the passion and interest of the viewer as she does. Her art has the power to combine 
people and fix emotions. 
[The petitioner] is a social artist. Her talent is not only creating the art, but also bringing the 
viewer into the shoes of the artist. [The petitioner] enjoys sharing her birth given talent with 
us and bringing color into our lives. In all the projects we have done together, she has 
managed to tie the viewers into her by contributing her liveliness and her fearlessness to even 
put her hand in the bucket of paint. I believe the reason for her international fame is because 
of her insightfulness and genuineness. (The petitioner] achieves to be a local in all parts and 
corners of the world through her art. She becomes one with the character of the place. Her 
art has a universal value. [The petitioner's] art is an important model for our children and 
new generations. We are happy she is working with us in our projects and will continue to 
cultivate hope in the future. 
I fully believe that with support, she will play a very important and constructive role to bring 
messages of peace and love throughout the world. 
Mr. points to the petitioner's artistic qualities and creative talent, and asserts that the 
petitioner "has contributed greatly to the art world in Turkey and throughout the world ," but he does 
not identify specific examples of the petitioner's works of art that have influenced the field or 
otherwise constitute original contributions of major significance in the field of modern art. Vague, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 
F.3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the conclusion that "letters from physics 
professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
President of 
association in Rome, Italy, stated: ----------------
, a nonprofit contemporary art 
[The petitioner] has worked for distinguished organizations around the world. She 
participates in many international exhibitions and projects for internationally recognized 
organizations. She has shown his [sic] art in Rome, first at to great acclaim 
with the presentation of the Turkey Ambassador at the then in a great 
international exhibit name[ d] during last June 2012 at the 
all curated by me, with the presentation of the President of 
in taly, Mr. 
I can confirm that [the petitioner] is an artistin high demand for his [sic] creative genius. I 
am certain that she will receive the same kind of acclaim for his [sic] art in all the Italy, 
Europe, and USA as she has received in the past at home and throughout the world. 
Ms. comments on the petitioner's exhibitions at the~ in Rome and 
"at the " but does not explain how the petitioner's artwork from the 
events has affected the field of modern art or otherwise e uates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. In addition, Ms. asserts that the petitioner is "an artist in 
high demand" and that the petitioner will continue to receive acclaim for her work. The fact that the 
petitioner has participated in exhibitions and projects for various organizations and has garnered 
some degree of recognition for her art, however, does not automatically demonstrate that her work 
has had major significance in the field. 
Museum Manager and Board Chairman, , Turkey, stated: 
is a modern art museum operating under the m 
Turkey. We are Turkey's biggest exhibition area with 13,000 square meters of 
space. 
[The petitioner] is one o~ 's most significant artists. More than 20 art pieces 
from [the petitioner] are maintained at our exhibitions and her work takes its place with other 
very well-known and valuable arti fsicl, are included in our museum's collection. In 2010, 
[the petitioner's] exhibition titled was received very positively and had 
more than 10,000 visitors. 
We believe that [the petitioner's] multidimensional understanding of art and interactive 
social and cultural projects with artists from all over the world makes a great contribution to 
the development of transnational cultural dialogues. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Mr. asserts that the petitioner "is one of one of ' s most significant artists" and 
that more than twenty pieces of her art are maintained in the museum's exhibitions. Again , the 
regulations contain a separate criterion for display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Absent documentation of specific contributions that were of 
major significance in the field, display of the petitioner's artwork in 's exhibition area is 
not sufficient evidence under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). For example, although Mr. points out 
that the petitioner's exhibition was received erv positively and had more than 
10,000 visitors, " he does not provide specific examples of how has influenced the work of 
other contemporary artists or otherwise constitutes an artistic contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
President of 
project of 
the 
stated: 
[The petitioner] and I have worked on projects together for the benefit of whales and 
dolphins in the NYC area. . . . She is a unique soul who cares about animals and the 
environment and incorporates them into her artwork to benefit the world. [The petitioner] 
has managed to create a style of exhibition and creation which is unique and all her own. 
She follows the which inspires her creativity. She has created a unique yet 
universal art style, with a global message that has the power to unite people, crossing 
language and cultural barriers, generation gaps, and genres. 
a 
Ms. points to the petitioner ' s unique style, but does not explain how the petitioner 's work 
has impacted the field of modern art at a level indicative of an artistic contribution of major 
significance in the field of modern art. Assuming the petitioner's artistic skills are unique, the 
classification sought was not designed for alleviating skill shortages in a given field. The issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New 
York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comrn 'r 1998). 
Ms. further stated: 
(The petitioner] has been involved in many exhibits, museums and galleries throughout the 
world, including an exhibit by our charity which was held at the in New 
York. The exhibit, named was created to bring attention to the 
beauty of whales in nature and to benefit the working to 
protect whales in their own habitat. She created the works exhibited during this show by 
listening to the This exhibit brought great recognition to our charity and 
we were able to raise 1,000.00. The exhibit was also successful at bringing people together , 
at one with nature. I personally saw at least 100 attendees gain a newfound appreciation of 
this whale art and the beauty of the environment. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has also been involved in international projects to distribute art and grow 
interest in art. For example , she was in which set out to transcend 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
geographic political and cultural boundaries by distributing over 10,000 pieces of art around 
the world. Over 99 artists staged "trans-global exhibitions" where the pieces were displayed 
and then "handed out around the world in the guise of coasters to bars, cafes and restaurants." 
Ms. mentions that the petitioner participated in the exhibition 
at the and helped to raise $1,000.00. In addition, Ms. comments that the 
petitioner was involved in that displayed art pieces and then distributed them 
"in the guise of coasters to bars, cafes and restaurants." Ms. however, does not provide 
specific examples indicating that the petitioner's artwork has affected the field of modern art, has 
influenced the work of other artists, or otherwise equates to a contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content 
of the references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of an artist who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without 
additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's artwork has been unusually influential, 
substantially impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. See 
Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, 8. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that she has displayed her work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly , the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence meets this 
regulatory criterion is affirmed. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination? Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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 Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); 
Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). In any future 
proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office that made the last 
decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(aX1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).