dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 5, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a contemporary 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. 
§ 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 tield through extensive documentation. 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional documentation and a briet~ arguing that he meets at 
least three criteria and satisfies all of the extraordinary ability requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualitied 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 tield through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work Ill the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benetit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Maller of M-L-
The term "extraordinary ability " refers only to those individual s 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 regulatio n 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time ac hievement (that is, a major , 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evi dence , then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least tluee 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 article s). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , we then consider the tota lity o f the 
mate rial provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individu al is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review ~here 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 (O.D.C. 2013) ; Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash . 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its qualit y," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both indi viduall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Maller ofChawalhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) .. 
II. ANAL YSlS 
The Petitioner is a contemporary artist who has mainly display ed his artwork in China. Because he 
has not indicated or established that he has received a major , internationally recogniz ed awa rd, he 
must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, arti stic display 
under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets five additional criteria, discu ssed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a find ing that the 
Petitioner satisfie s the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Docwnentalion of the alien 's receipt of lesser narionally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner argues that "[ w]here the competition itself believes that the petitioner won the 
equivalent of silver, he should be held to have such award in the absence of an actual giving of such 
award." The record contains evidence showing that he was one of six finalists for the 2011 
In addition, he submitted letters from jury president for the 
competition, and co-curator for the award, who stated that received the 
gold award and the other five finalists are considered "silver award winners." 
2 
.
Maller of M-L-
In order to meet this criter ion, the Petitioner must demonstrate, in part, that he was the reci pien t of 
prizes or awa rds. 1 Here , the record does not corroborate either the Petitioner 's claims or ·the 
statem ents 
in his letter s. Specifically, the Petiti oner provided doc ument ary ev idence reflecting that 
the grants only one award, including stateme nts s uch as "[t]he 
award aims to grant to one artist annual[ly]," and "[o ]ne awa rding artist will be selec ted annually for 
his or her constant artistic creation." Moreov er, chief project curator for the awa rd, 
stated that "[t] he award aims to grant to one artist annual, who is cons istent in his/her artistic 
practice. " Thu s, the evid ence indicates that only o ne award is granted, and the Petitioner did not 
establish that the competition distributes "silver awards ," or that the remaining fina lists receive 
them. Therefore, the Petition er did not show that he received a prize or award consistent with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In additi on, the Petitioner did not demonstrat e that the ts a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field . According to 
letter, the was crea ted in 20 I 0 to be the first award set-up by a non-
profit museum in China . Altho ugh claimed that the compe tition was covered by the 
Chinese press in sev eral newspa pers and broadcas ted by one television sta tion, the Petitioner 
provided on ly one screenshot from chinadaily.com reporting about the competitio n. Acco rdingly, 
the Petition er has not shown national or intern ational recogniti on as an award for excellence in the 
field. 2 
Further, the Petitioner also contends that because " [t]he evidence is heav ily present in the file that 
the standard s of award of the competition are not normal, and so do not readily a pply 
to the petitioner's occupation ," the award should be cons idered as com parabl e evidence. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(4) allows for the s ubmission of comparable evidence if the l isted 
criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. 3 Here, the Petiti one r argues that the 
does not app ly to his occupati on. On the contrary, the record contains sufficient 
evidence reflec ting that the awar d i s applicable to Chinese artists , such as the Petitioner. The fact 
that the Petitioner did not garner the is not evidence that his finalist 
position should be co nsider ed in the alternativ e as comparable evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
did not establish that he meets this criterion, nor has he met the com parable evidence requir eme nts.' 
1 
See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submilled with Certain Form 1-140 
Petilions: Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapte r 22.2. AFM Update ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www .usc is.gov/ laws/policy-memoranda. 
2 /d. at 6. 
3
/d.a tl 2. 
., 
.) 
.
Maller of M-L-
Published material about the alien in pn~fessional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien 's work in the field for which class[fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date, and author of the material, and any necessary trans/a/ion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)( iii). 
The record contains article s reflecting material abo ut the Petitioner relating to his work in 
publications such as 
and However , the record does not establish that these publications qualify as that 
they are professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petit ioner provided 
documentation from the publications, suc h as inside covers and letters , adve rtising their standing and 
public reach. For example , a letter from publisher for , claimed that is the 
number one contemporary art maga zine, a bi-monthly Chinese-English publication with 
global distribution." Moreover , a letter from , chief editor for asse rted 
that is a well-known mag azine in the field of contemporary art," and "[o]ur 
publication is national, and with one of the broade st distribution networks for art journals, it can be 
acquired in over 200 art bookstores in China." Further, website indicates that 
"[n]earl y 5 million people have access to on a daily basis," and boasts that it 
"has raised its profile internationally to become one of the most respected journa ls devoted to 
contemporary Chinese art." Although the Director informed the Petitioner that documentation from 
the publicati ons was insufficient to establish that they are qualifying publications, the Petitioner does 
not offer any independent, support ing evidence on appeal to demonstrate their circula tions or 
. 4 reputatiOns. 
Evidence of !he alien's original scienl[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness-rela!ed 
contributions o_fmajor sign[ficance in !he field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establi sh not only that 
he has made original cont ributions but that they have been of major significance in the tield. For 
instance, a petitioner may show t hat his contributions have been widely imp lement ed throughout the 
field , have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a leve l of major 
significanc e in his overall field. The Petitioner argues tha t his artwork " has had solo or group 
exhibitions ... around the globe." The showcasing or exhibiting of his work, however , will be 
considered and discussed under the artistic display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the field views the display of his work at museums and 
galleries as majorly sig nific ant. 
Jn addition , the Petitioner contend s that director of 
artist and filmmaker; and director of wrote 
about his where he introduced artwork to villagers in his rural hometown, in 
4 
See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA july 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9111 Cir. 2009) (concluding 
that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine ' s status is not reliant evidence of major 
media) . 
4 
.
Maller ofM-L-
their public ations. Moreover , the record contains letters further discu ssing the Petiti oner' s work on 
the Although claimed that the Petitioner "is an influence to oJhers," 
she did not explain how he ha s influenced other s or: how his project is considered to be of major 
significance to the field. Further , while stated that the project is "on e of the most moving 
and interesting works of art that (she has] witne ssed in decade s," she did not establish that the 
or any his other artwork or projects, is con sidered to be of major significance 
in the field. did not, for example, describe the significant impact to the overall field 
beyond her personal opinion of his artwork. Similarly, indicat ed the "invaluable addition 
to the development of the collection in the museum," without showi ng its influence on the field.5 
For these reasons , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his rises to a level 
consistent with major signiticance , and that he meet s this criterion. 
Evidenc e- <~(the alien 's authorship <~(scholarly articles in the field. in pn?fessiona/ or mqjor 
trade publications or other m£{jor media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 3)(v i). 
The Petitioner claims that his written material qualifies as scholarly articles and provides a 
screenshot from defining scholarl y o r peer-r eviewed jou rnal articles as "written 
by scholars or professionals who are experts in the fields. " Further , the record contains two article s, 
published in and , and a book, describing 
and recounting the history ofhis 
A scholarl y article should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned " is defined as 
having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons 
having profound knowledge of a field.6 Here, the Petitioner authored material sharing his personal 
experiences rather than "scholarly " articles. Moreover, as discussed under the publ ished material 
criterion, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that and as well as his book, 
qualify as professional or major trade publications or o,ther major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
· did not establish that he satisfi es this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or shmvcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. As the Petitioner provid ed evidence 
showing that his work has been displayed at museums, such as the 
we concur with the Director 's finding. 7 
5 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F . Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
6 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
7 
See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra. at 9-10. 
5 
.
Malter of M-L-
Evidence !hal the alien has perform ed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishm ents that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(v iii) . 
The Petitione r contend s that he performed in a leading or critical role for the 
Specifica lly, he arg ues that fore word to his book "clearly points out the leading or 
crit ical role that [he] has performed for the museum in helpin g it determine its role for the future." 
In addition
, the Petitioner claims that the museum's promotion of his purc hase 
of his artwork, and two exhibitions show his role with it. 
If a leading role, then evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leade r. A title, with 
approp riate matching duti es, can help to estab lish if a role is or was, in fact, leadi ng.8 If a c ritical 
role , the evidence must establish that a petitioner has . contribute d in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcom e of the organization or esta blishment 's activi ties. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role , but rathe r the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 9 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that he performed in a leading role for the 
The record does not show that he ever held a leader ship position with the museum or that the 
museum ever employed him in any capacity; inste ad it collaborated with him in assis ting with the 
and exhib ited his work on two occas ions. Accordingl y, the Petitione r did not 
demonstrate that his collabo rations amounted to a leadi ng role with the museum. 
As it relate s to a critical role , the Petitioner did not show tha,t he contributed to the succe ss or 
• standing of the While opines in his foreword that oth er museums 
should pursu e the approach the Petiti oner took with the he docs not explain 
how it affected the Moreover, the Petitio ner did not show, f or example, that his 
exhibi tion s brought in high er attendanc e or furthered the museum ' s reputation. For these reaso ns, 
the Peti tioner did not show that he performed in a critical role for the and that he 
satisfies this criter ion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initi al evidence of either a one-t ime achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteri a. As a result , we need not prov ide the type of 
final merits determinati on referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 19-20.10 Neverthe less , we advise 
that we have reviewe d the record in the agg regate, concludi ng that it does not support a findin g t hat 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the class ification sought. For the 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, ·at I 0. 
9 !d. 
10 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A)(i) of the Act we 
do not need to determine whether he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. See section 
203(b)( I)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
6 
Matter of M-L-
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller ofM-L-, ID# 1274907 (AAO June 5, 2018)