dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20754998 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
demonstrated that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification , it did 
not establish the Petitioner 's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 miniatures artist specializing in folk art and I I miniatures 
who has displayed his work at numerous exhibitions, showcases and trade fairs around the world. He 
states that he intends to continue his work as a miniatures artist in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Director found that the Petitioner met four of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to published material, judging, authorship of scholarly 
articles, and artistic display, and we agree with that determination. However, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not show that he garnered sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, demonstrating that he is one of that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's determination that he has not earned sustained 
national or international acclaim was erroneous, and further asserts that the Director erred in 
determining that he did not meet two additional initial evidentiary criteria relating to lesser awards and 
original contributions of major significance. We note, however, that once the Petitioner satisfies at 
least three of the regulatory criteria, the focus shifts to whether the evidence establishes that he has the 
necessary status and acclaim in the field. As the Director found that the Petitioner meets four criteria, 
any items that might relate to other criteria are better considered in the context of the final merits 
analysis. 1 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record is not indicative of the 
necessary level of acclaim and status in the field. 
1 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing that 
objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act). 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his 
achievements rise to a level of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding published material, the Petitioner offered one article about him published in 2016. This 
single article, however, does not demonstrate that such minimal press coverage is consistent with the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner also submitted evidence demonstrating that his 
biography appeared in the 2018-2019 volume of Who 's Who in Visual Art, published by Art Domain 
Whois Publisher, Germany. According to the documentation submitted, the Petitioner's one-paragraph 
biography appeared along with 100 other brief biographies of artisans, craftspeople and designers in this 
volume. Appearing in a volume with a large number of other individuals is not indicative of national 
acclaim or status among the small percentage at the top of the field. 
The Petitioner did not show how his overall media coverage is indicative of a level of success with 
being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting on him and his 
activities reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field. or a very high standard to present more 
extensive documentation than that required. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 
30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 2 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner participated as a judge/juror for exhibitions including 
in 2010 and thel !Music Festival and Art Show in 2016. However, while the evidence 
submitted confirms his participation and shows that he has achieved some level of recognition for his 
work in the field, it does not establish that these exhibitions are prestigious or that selection as a judge 
for these events is reserved for those artists at the top of the field. The Petitioner did not show, for 
example, how his judging experience compares to others at the very top of the field, and he has not 
established that these instances place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence 
that he has a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed individuals in his field, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his judging experience places him among that small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
2 See id. (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or 
international acclaim). 
3 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 3 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner authored one magazine and one newspaper article in 2016. However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his publication record of two documents in a one-year period is 
consistent with having a career of acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. 
See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner did not 
establish that his authorships reflect being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For instance, the Petitioner did not show the significance of his authorships 
or how his publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
Regarding the public display of his artwork, the evidence shows that the Petitioner's work has been 
displayed at craft shows, fairs, and showcases, primarily inl I as well as at international 
artistic exhibitions. The record, however, does not include evidence which demonstrates that any of 
the named craft shows and fairs attracted anything other than local interest or garnered acclaim for the 
Petitioner and his work. Similarly, although the record reflects that the display of the Petitioner's 
work at various artistic exhibitions in cities such asl I might suggest broader acclaim for the 
Petitioner, the record contains insufficient evidence of the attention garnered by such exhibitions. 
Beyond the four criteria determined by the Director that the Petitioner satisfied, discussed above, we 
consider additional documentation in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the 
evidence demonstrates eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Here, for the reasons 
discussed below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national 
or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his receipt of the I Special Achievement Medal in 
thel category ofl I an International Fine Arts Competition presented bye 
I in 2016. While the Petitioner's receipt of this award demonstrates some level of 
recognition, the record does not include evidence of recognition beyond the event and its organizers, 
nor is there evidence that this competition is prestigious or well-known such that this award was 
nationally or internationally recognized and brought acclaim of that scope to the Petitioner. In 
addition, the record does not include information about this competition, its categories, and the number 
and type of medals and other awards issued. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that his receipt of this 
single award is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Nor does the record as a whole reflect such acclaim or include extensive 
documentation demonstrating that his achievements have been recognized in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate and a letter from I l the Association of Folk Artists, 
Craftsmen and Artists of in which the Chairman of the I I 
Department stated that the Petitioner was accepted as a member in 2006 and that he is a current and 
full member of the association. The Petitioner also submitted copies of letters from other artists who 
recommended him for membership based upon his achievements and skill inl I 
miniatures. These letters, however, do not reflect that membership requires outstanding achievements 
in the field as judged by recognized experts in that field.4 For example, while the letter from 
3 See id. (providing that publications should be evaluated to determine whether they were indicative of being one of that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international 
acclaim). 
4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, at F.2. 
4 
___ indicates that admission "is granted on the recommendation of Art Experts Council 
composed solely of nationally or internationally recognized experts in the respective fields of folk art 
and based on the applicant's artistic achievements and potential for future development in the field," 
the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence, such as the organization's bylaws or 
information on the composition of the Art Experts Council to corroborate these claims. The Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that this association limits its membership to 
individuals with renowned endeavors nor has he otherwise demonstrated the significance of this 
membership such that it contributes to a finding that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Petitioner also claims that he invented a new and unique method for painting miniaturesD 
and and submits reference letters from artists and others in the art world who provide their thoughts 
on this technique as well as his other contributions to the field. 5 This testimonial evidence indicates 
that the Petitioner's artistic skills as a miniaturist are highly regarded by his peers. However, the letters 
do not identify with specificity how he has remarkably impacted or influenced the field and that he 
has received sustained and widespread acclaim for his unique contributions. 
For example,! I Director of the indicates that his 
museum has acquired and is honored to dis la the Petitioner's work, and notes that the Petitioner's 
perfection of the special process makes his works "utterly unique." I I 
I I Fine Arts Chair for Fine Art, generally praises the Petitioner's art 
and states that his many accomplishments in the field "unquestionabl illustrate" his extraordinary 
talent and ability. I I artist and board member o Fine Art states 
that he had not seen the Petitioner's technique of painting pr prior to the 
Exhibition in 2018, but after seeing it he "is positive that the Petitioner has made a contribution of 
major significance to the development of miniature art." I I al lartist, 
generally compliments the Petitioner's work and describes his techniques as "very picturesque and 
illustrative." 
While the writers compliment the Petitioner's work, none of the writers explain how his technique of 
painting I I represents an "original contribution," nor do they address the impact of this technique 
or any of his other innovations on the field. Neither the letters nor the evidence as a whole indicates 
that the Petitioner has been recognized for making an original contribution of major significance based 
on his work. Also, although the statements in these letters describe his work as innovative, they do 
not indicate that others in the field have adopted elements of or have been inspired by the Petitioner's 
work in creating their own art. While these letters suggest that the Petitioner'sDtechnique, and body 
of work generally, have directly impacted the letter writers in their artistic approaches, their statements 
are not indicative of original contributions in the field with a wider impact consistent with "major 
significance," nor do their statements support a finding that the Petitioner has received national or 
international acclaim as a result ofhisOtechnique or general body of work with miniatures. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The record does not contain sufficient evidence distinguishing the 
Petitioner from others in the field and does not demonstrate that his achievements are at a level that 
5 All of the reference letters have been reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in this decision. 
5 
places him among the small percentage at the top of the field. Nor does the evidence establish that he 
has enjoyed sustained acclaim at the national or international level, or that it is consistent with a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59; see also 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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). In this case, although the evidence shows that the Petitioner has raised his 
standing among his peers in the field of miniature art, it does not establish that he is yet one of that 
small percentage at the top of the field. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6