dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 31, 2024 In Re: 29504977 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an artist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria or provide sufficient evidence that she is coming to the 
United States to continue to work in her area of expertise. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established her receipt of 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 determined the Petitioner did not 
fulfill any of them. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains she meets five evidentiary categories. 1 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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). 
The Petitioner contends eligibility for this criterion based on her membership with the.._l_____ _. 
USCIS determines if the association for which the person claims membership 
requires that members have outstanding achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in 
that field. 2 The petitioner must show that membership in the association requires outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 3 
The Petitioner submitted her membership card for the I land information about the association, 
including its "Rules to Join" and "Process to Join." She also provided biographical profiles for two 
individuals who she claims serve on theLJmembership review panel. The "Rules to Join" state 
that an "applicant with more than 9 points (including 9 points) meets the performance conditions for 
applying for membership." In addition, the "Rules to Join" indicate that points are granted based on 
1 We consider the Petitioner's prior eligibility claims not raised or contested on appeal to be abandoned. An issue not 
raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter of R-A-M-, 
25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manuaL 
3 Id. 
2 
numerous criteria, including having "participated in exhibitions," "engaged in the restoration of fine 
arts ... for more than 15 years," and "worked continuously in ... art research institutions for more 
than 15 years." The "Rules to Join" further state that "[b ]achelor of full-time national key art colleges 
and universities gets 1 point, full-time master gets 2 points and full-time doctor gets 3 points"; 
"[e]thnic minorities in remote areas get 2 points"; and "[f]emale artists in remote areas get 2 points." 
The Petitioner has not established that the aforementioned membership criteria rise to the level of 
outstanding achievements. 
Furthermore, the "Rules to Join" do not indicate that admission to membership in the~is judged 
by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. For example, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the "preliminary examination unit," the "Membership Office," the 
"Member Work Department," or the "Party Group" of thee=] that reviews applicants is comprised 
of national or international experts in the arts. While the Petitioner provided the rograrhical profiles 
for F-M, Secretary-General of the D and Q-T-, First-level Inspector of the this evidence 
does not establish that those serving as CAA membership reviewers are considered to be recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner claims eli ibilit for this criterion based on her authorshi of a book, entitled 
and articles in '-------------------------'
4 
First, USCIS determines whether the person has authored scholarly articles in the field. 5 As defined 
in the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or 
philosophical discourse. 6 It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with 
a college, university, or research institution. 7 Scholarly articles are generally peer reviewed by other 
experts in the field of specialization. 8 In general, it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, 
and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the 
article. 9 Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's published work contains the 
characteristics of scholarly articles, as considered in the academic arena. The Petitioner did not 
establish that she wrote the articles as a researcher or exl)ert rather than writing a general interest 
stories aboutl Ias an educator or the town of c=] and its artifacts. Moreover, none of 
her articles contain the features of academic scholarly articles, such as footnotes or bibliographies. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that her book and articles qualify as scholarly articles 
within the purview of academia. 
4 She submitted articles in entitled 
,,______________ --,-_______ __, (2013) and .______________ __, 
~----------~(2015).
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
3 
For other fields, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. 10 "Learned" is 
defined as having "profound knowledge gained by study." 11 Learned persons include all persons 
having profound knowledge of a field. 12 Here, the Petitioner did not show that her publications were 
written for learned persons in the visual arts field or for other learned persons in her particular genre. 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that her publications are geared toward persons having 
profound knowledge in Chinese painting and rubbing. 
Next, USCIS determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade 
publication, or other major media publication. 13 In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a 
professional publication or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional journals) and the circulation or readership relative to other media in the field for ma·or 
media . 14 Here the Petitioner has not shown that the intended audience for 
.____________________ _. is indicative of a professional publication. Nor has 
she demonstrated that their circulation or readership rises to the level of major trade publications or 
other major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that her material qualifies as 
scholarly articles under this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner submitted certificates statin resented her work at exhibitions such as China's~---------------.......,_ ____.____~ 
.________________________ __.Art Exhibition. As such, she has 
demonstrated that she fulfills this single 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). 
To qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must show that they played a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment, and that that organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. For a leading role, USCIS looks at whether the evidence establishes that the person is (or 
was) a leader within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. 15 A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish that a role is (or was), in fact, leading. 16 For a 
critical role, USCIS looks at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way 
that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or 
those of a division or department of the organization or establishment. 17 
10 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
11 Id. (citing to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of"leamed"). 
12 Id. 
13 Id. 
14 Id. 
15 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
16 Id. 
17 Id. 
4 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that she has performed in a leading or critical role for~I---~ 
._________ ___. She initially provided an August 2018 "Letter of Appointment" naming her 
"a lifelong consultant" ofl I In addition, the Petitioner submitted an August 2018 "Testimonial" 
(bearing a seal from I b that stated: "Because of her success in making full-form rubbings for the 
bronzes in the collection of I I, [the Petitioner] has promoted the exhibition and academic 
exchange of our collection, and has made significant contributions to the protection and research of 
cultural relics. Hereby we would like to appoint [the Petitioner] as a lifelong consultant of I I." 
The author of this 'Testimonial" is not identified and no address or telephone number were included 
in the document. The Petitioner also submitted various images of what she claims are "full-form 
rubbings for the bronzes collection," but this documentation does not include evidence attributing the 
bronze collection rubbings to the Petitioner or her work atl I 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a March 2023 letter 
from Z-D-, Curator ofl Istating: 
I am very grateful to [the Petitioner] for serving as such a critical role of expert 
consultant for our museum. For a long time, [the Petitioner's] outstanding 
achievements in the production of full-form rubbing are in close agreement with our 
museum's key project - the collection, protection, and archaeological research of 
bronze ware. As an expert consultant for our museum, [ the Petitioner] has played such 
a significant role in strengthening the protection of bronze relics, in-depth research on 
cultural relics resources, history and culture, promoting the activation and utilization 
of cultural relics, and promoting science popularization. 
While the letter from Z-D- asserts that the Petitioner's work involving "the production of full-form 
rubbing are in close agreement with our museum's key project - the collection, protection, and 
archaeological research of bronze ware," an article submitted by the Petitioner states that the 
is "the only museum dedicated to the history and culture of the 
I !(emphasis added). The letter from Z-D- does not ~c-on_t_a-in-su_f_f-1c-i-en_t_i_n_fo_rm_a_t-io-n-an-d~ 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroboratin evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
full-form rubbings for the bronzes in the collection of is the "museum's key project," given 
thaU Iis primarily a museum of.________________ ___. The August 2018 
"Testimonial" and the letter from Z-D- indicate that the Petitioner has contributed tol Ibronze 
rubbings collection, but their assertions are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
consulting role for the museum was leading or critical. For example, another article provided by the 
Petitioner states thatl Ihas "56 employees," but the Petitioner did not provide an organizational 
chart or other similar evidence to establish where her role fit within the overall hierarchy of the 
museum to demonstrate a leading role. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that she has contributed to 
the museum in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of its mission or operations. 18 
Next, USCIS determines whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for 
which the person holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. 19 Merriam-
18 For instance, the Petitioner has not shown that her specific projects have significantly increased attendance at the 
museum. 
19 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
5 
Webster's online dictionary defines "distinguished" as "marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence" or "befitting an eminent person." 20 Here, the Petitioner initially submitted an article about 
I I entitled stating that it "officially 
opened on 2010." In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted another 
article indicating that,__~~ "is a national tier two comprehensive museum." She also provided an 
article stating that "there are 204 tier one museums, 455 tier two museums, and 565 tier three 
museums" according to the Chinese Museums Association (CMA). The Petitioner contends that this 
information shows that I I "is among top 10%" in China," but her calculation is incorrect. 21 The 
Petitioner has not established that "tier two" CMA classification renders I I an organization with 
a distinguished reputation. 
Nor are the remaining articles offered in support of this criterion sufficient to demonstrate thatl ] 
has earned a distinguished reputation. For example, a~2006 article, entitled I II Idiscusses only the museum's development phase and start of construction 
lanned for the latter art of 2006. Likewise, an 2010 article, entitled I I 
discusses the official opening ~o-f--;=I===1·a_n_d_1_·ts_a_rt-if:_a_c-ts-an_d_e_x_h-ib-i-ti_o_n_a_r_e-as-_-T_h_e_s_e_a_rt_i_cl_e_s_d_o_n_o_t~establish that the museum has 
achieved a distinguished reputation. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner meets the display criterion, but has not established she satisfies the criteria 
relating to 
membership, authorship of scholarly articles, and leading or critical role. Although the Petitioner also 
claims eligibility for the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not 
reach this additional ground because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Because the Petitioner's inability to meet three of the 
initial criteria is dispositive of her appeal, we also need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or an analysis of the evidence relating to 
her continuing to work in her area of expertise in the United States under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 22 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
20 Id. 
21 The 204 tier one museums comprise the top 16.6 percent of CM A-graded museums. 
22 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of her work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or 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 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
7