dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

identifying dab dr!eted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PURI.IC COPY 
FILE: 
8 EAc 06 018 52194 Office: NEBIUsKA SERVICE CENTER Date:NOV 2 8 2008 
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: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
7~ohn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and 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)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 -- 
(i) the alien has extraordmary 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As 
used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an artist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien 
Page 3 
of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following 
criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following: 
1. Certificate of Award presented to the petitioner by the Global Artist League, Inc. of New York in 
recognition of his "Work of Excellence" (July 29,2004).* 
2. Certificate of Glory presented to the petitioner stating: "Your oil painting works, is [sic] collected 
by 2003 World Outstanding Chinese Artist Painting Works Exhibition, and awarded International 
Golden Prize. You was [sic] awarded the glory title 'World Outstanding Chinese Artist' for your 
outstanding achievement in the field of art development" (July 26,2003). 
3. "Certification of Award" presented to the petitioner stating: "Your Work to Join 3rd Beijing 
International Art Exposition 2000 is Awarded The Secend [sic] Prize by the Art Exposition 
Committee" (May 2000).~ 
4. Certificate of Award stating that the petitioner's book design work received a "First Class Prize" 
at the 2000 Hong Kong Design Exhibition (November 2000). 
5. "Golden Award Certificate" stating that the petitioner's book design work was "awarded golden 
price [sic] in 8th Beijing International Book Fair" (September 2000). 
6. Certificate of Award stating that the petitioner's book design work was "awarded the 4' State 
Books Glory Prize" (December 1999). 
7. Certificate from Jilin University stating that the petitioner received a "Second Class Scholarship 
of Excellent Student in the term of 1998 to 1999" (June 17, 1999). 
8. Certificate from the Committee of the Jilin University Youth League stating that the petitioner 
received a "First Class Prize in Acquirement Competition" (April 28, 1998). 
9. Certificate from Jilin University stating that the petitioner received a "First Class Scholarship of 
Excellent Student in the terms of 1996 to 1997" (October 20, 1997). 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner also submitted a document accompanying his certificate stating: "The Missions of Global Artist League 
(GAL) is [sic] to promote the communication of the global art, to improve the understanding the difference between US 
and China, and their relationship. . . . For celebrate the independent [sic] day this year, the GAL decides to unite the 
American Chinese Artists' Association to organize those artists who are always activated [sic] and famous in Chinese 
Communities." 
3 
 The petitioner also submitted an announcement for the Beijing International Art Exposition 2000, but the 
announcement did not provide specific information regarding the award criteria or the significance of the competition. 
10. Certificate from Jilin University stating that the petitioner was "[plraised as 'Excellent Student"' 
and received a "First Class Scholarship of Excellent Student" (October 20, 1997). 
1 1. Certificate from Jilin University stating that the petitioner's sketch received a "First Class" award 
in the "Sea of Art" Calligraphy and Painting Performance (September 22, 1996). 
12. Certificate from Jilin University stating that the petitioner's sketch received a "First Class" award 
in the "Qiuhong Cup" Calligraphy and Painting Exhibition (December 3, 1997). 
13. Certificate of Award stating that the petitioner's work received an "Excellent Prize" at the Japan 
China Arts Academy's Eighth China Modem Oil Painting Exhibition (October 1996). 
14. Certificate stating that the petitioner's oil painting received a "First Class Prize" at the 1997 Jilin 
Province Art Works Exhibition (July 1997). 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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. Regarding items 2 through 14, the English language translations accompanying these certificates 
were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation. 
Item 1 and items 7 - 13 reflect institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
Further, in regard to items 7, 9, and 10, the petitioner's receipt of university scholarships does not constitute 
his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a field of 
endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of scholarships from Jilin University, limited by their terms to students, is 
not an indication that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). Such scholarships offer no meaningful comparison between the petitioner 
and those working in the field who have long since completed their educational training. With regard to item 
14, we note that this prize reflects provincial recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
Regarding items 1 through 14, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that his awards commanded national or international recognition beyond the presenting 
organizations consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The record lacks supporting 
evidence establishing the significance and magnitude of the petitioner's competitions. For example, the 
record does not include evidence demonstrating the number of award recipients, the geographic area from 
which the individuals eligible for consideration for these awards were drawn, the criteria for granting the 
awards, the level of expertise of those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to compete. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award dated 
January 7, 2006 stating that he was selected as one of "Top 100 Outstanding Oil Painters in Asia" in 2005. 
The petitioner received this award subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this award in this proceeding. 
Page 5 
The petitioner's response included a September 18,2005 Certificate of Recognition and a September 26,2005 
Certificate of Award from the U.S. Research Center for World Celebrity Culture, Inc., New York. There is 
no evidence showing that these awards are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner's response also included a certificate issued by 
 Chairman of the Committee of 
the World Peace Award Art Competition, University of Houston, stating: "It is hereby certified that [the 
petitioner] has participated in the first World Peace Award Art Competition and been Presented this 
Certificate of Award on the date of May 7, 2002." The certificate was accompanied by an Award Notice 
stating: "You are one of the award recipients for the First World Peace Award Competition! . . . We have 
received more than 1000 pieces works [sic] from all over the world, such as the United States, Canada, 
France, Italy, China, Japan, etc." The petitioner also submitted two Chinese-language articles from May 2002 
reporting on the contest, but the English language translations accompanying these articles were not certified 
by the translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner has not established that 
his Certificate of Award from this competition at the University of Houston constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his field. 
The petitioner also submitted a Best Work Award from the Committee of the 3rd International Golden Swan 
Art Competition, New York (1999). The award certificate was accompanied by an October 27, 1999 letter 
from Kathryn Freed, New York City Council Member, to Carlin chang; Chairman of the World Art Center 
(located at 104-1 16 Nassau Street, 9" Floor, New York), stating: 
It is my pleasure to congratulate the World Art Center and the China Art Center on the Third 
International Golden Swan Art Competition Award Ceremony to be held on October 27, 1999, at the 
China Art Center. The Golden Swan Art Competition . . . provides a good opportunity for Chinese 
artists to display their works and for the public to see and enjoy them. 
This year, over ten thousand Chinese artists, from nineteen countries around the world, have 
participated in the competition and eleven hundred pieces of art have been selected for awards. 
The petitioner has not established that his receipt of an award in a competition limited to artists of a particular 
ethnicity constitutes an award for excellence "in the field of endeavor." Further, we cannot ignore that 
"eleven hundred pieces of art" were selected for recognition in this competition. There is no evidence 
establishng that the petitioner's Best Work Award from this competition commanded significant recognition 
beyond the presenting organization. As such, we cannot conclude that the award qualifies as a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
4 
We note that chaired the Committee of the World Peace Award Art Competition held at the University of 
Houston. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classiJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his "Associate" membership in Oil Painters of America (OPA). The 
petitioner also submitted an OPA membership fonn stating: 
ELIGIBILITY: All Artists working in the oil medium. 
Associate Members must be juried in by the Board with slides or photos. Individuals then become 
eligible to jury for all regional shows in their area and national shows. 
Signature Membership is conferred by the Board upon individuals who consistently demonstrate high 
quality work and have participated in three National Shows. 
Master Signature Membership is conferred by the OPA Board of Director's, according to the 
exceptional merit of work and accomplishment in the field of art. 
We cannot ignore that Signature membership and Master Signature membership are superior to the 
petitioner's entry-level Associate membership. There is no evidence showing that the less restrictive 
Associate membership status held by the petitioner in the OPA required outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner submitted his membership card for the American Impressionist Society (AIS) and the Society's 
mission statement. According to its mission statement, AIS membership "is open to all Impressionist artists 
and any who would like to support Impressionism." The petitioner also submitted evidence of his 
membership in the Portrait Society of America, Allied Artists of America, ~nc.,~ and the Global Artists 
League, Inc. of New York. The record includes general information regarding these societies, but there is no 
evidence showing that they require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
According to his membership card, the petitioner is an "Associate Member" of Allied Artists of America, Inc. 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted his membership certificate for the Jilin Branch of the Chinese Artists Association. 
The membership credential lists the petitioner's age as "26" and bears a date of January 18,2000. The record, 
however, reflects that the petitioner was born on November 17, 1974. As of January 18, 2000, the date of his 
membership card, the petitioner was age 25 not age 26. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id, at 591. In response to the director's request for evidence, 
the petitioner submitted a document entitled "The statute of China Artists' Association." The source of this 
document was not identified. Further, it has not been established that the information provided relates to the 
Jilin Branch of the Chinese Artists Association, the organization in which the petitioner claims membership. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profssional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJieldfor which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or ffom a publication printed in a language that the vast 
majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.6 
The petitioner submitted a paperback catalogue featuring his paintings entitled [The Petitioner's] Oil Painting 
Collections. This publication was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation as required by 
the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, this publication consists primarily of artwork created by the 
petitioner rather than material authored by another about him. Nor is there evidence (such as number of 
copies sold) showing that his publication qualifies as a major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted January and February 2005 articles in Ming Pao Daily News (New York), The China 
Press (New York), The Liberty Times (Flushing, New York), and the "Tri-State Edition7' of Sing Tao Daily. 
The English language translations accompanying these articles were not certified by the translator as required 
by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). These articles promote an upcoming February 24~ - 28~ exhibition 
of the petitioner's work in the gallery of the Queens Art Education Center at the Flushing Shopping Center. 
We note that the preceding newspapers are regional in their U.S. distribution and focused on the Chinese- 
speaking segment of the U.S. population. There is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that 
6 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Farfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
these newspapers qualify as major media. Regional coverage or coverage in a publication read by only a small 
ethnic segment of a country's total population is not evidence of national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a brief piece (seven sentences) about his work on page 24 of the December 1999 
issue of Art and Design. The English language translation accompanying this material was not certified by 
the translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the material was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Nor is there evidence showing that this 
publication qualifies as a major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that his paintings were among those of numerous artists whose 
works appeared in Art (1 997), Paintings by Chinese American Artists (2004) (an exhibition booklet edited by 
the Global Artist League, Inc.), Art Panorama, and Design and Color (edited by the petitioner's art 
professor at Jilin University). These publications were unaccompanied by certified English language 
translations as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner has not established that the 
preceding publications, or any significant portion of them, are primarily about him or his work. Further, there 
is no evidence showing that the publications qualify as major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article from the January 2005 
issue of Meishu Xiangdao (Art Guide). The English language translation accompanying this article was not 
certified by the translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence 
showing that this publication qualifies as a major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The petitioner also submitted a brief piece (six sentences) in the "Overseas Edition" of People's Daily dated 
May 8, 2002.' The English language translation accompanying this material was not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the material was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. The petitioner submitted information 
regarding the circulation of People's Daily in China, but there is no evidence showing that its "Overseas Edition" 
qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner's response included another brief piece (nine sentences) posted on the internet at 
art.enorth.corn.cn on May 9, 2002.~ The English language translation accompanying this material was not 
certified by the translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the 
material was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Finally, there is no 
evidence showing that this internet site qualifies as a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner's mention is limed to two sentences. 
The petitioner's mention is limed to two sentences. 
Page 9 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that he was 
appointed as a member of the judging committee for the "1" International Disabled Artists Art Competition" 
in November 2005. The petitioner's involvement with this competition occurred subsequent to the petition's 
filing date. As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this 
proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, the names 
of those he evaluated, their level of art expertise, and documentation of his assessments. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijcance in the3eld. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several reference letters praising his talent as an oil painter. 
Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of artistic contributions of major significance. 
The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted his field. 
m 
Chairman of the American Chinese Artist Association, New York, states: 
In looking over the works of [the petitioner], it is clear to me that he focused his entire passion on his 
art and nature as well. [The petitioner], who is genius, perhaps more than that of any other figure, 
epitomized the Chinese traditional calligraphy devices and an aggressive post expressionistic brush 
stroke. . . . Among his most unique works are his series of water village landscapes. One can see that 
the potent marks of eastern and western new expressionism were represented in this truly special 
series of oil paintings. Indeed, through his intense studies and brush stroke techniques for his water 
village scenes, he has developed a new world - New Expressionism. His creative style follows: 
Realism - Abstraction - Innovation - Continuous creation. 
International Association of Artists with Disabilities, New York, states: "[The petitioner's] 
unique style of New Expressionism introduces to the viewers the phenomena that appear to be familiar, yet 
new in reality." 
President, Global Artist League, Queens, New York, states: "I openly consider [the petitioner] 
as a master of rhythmical and continuous lines, forms, and colors." 
President of Iilin Province Artists Association, states: "Although [the petitioner's] style resembles 
that of modem and post-modem expressionism, he looks at and explains the world from a totally different 
'eastern' perspective.'" 
9 
The English language translation accompanying 
 letter was not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation 8 C.F.R. Q: 103.2(b)(3). 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his artistic achievements constitute original 
contributions of major significance in oil painting. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. @ 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner's artwork 
has earned the admiration of his educators in China, local arts organizations in New York, and the Chinese 
community in New York, there is nothing to demonstrate that his work has had major significance in the field 
at large. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other artists 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successfbl extraordinary ability 
claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts 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. Thus, the content of the writers' 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 of 
original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an artist who has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen 
to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted certificates reflecting his participation in the Eighth China Modern Oil Painting 
Exhibition of the Japan China Arts Academy (1996), the Jilin Province Art Works Exhibition (1997), the 
Fourth China and Korea Art Works Exhibition (1999), the China Art Exposition (1999), the Beijing 
International Art Exposition (2000), and the World Outstanding Chinese Artist Painting Works Exhibition 
(2003). The English language translations accompanying these certificates were not certified by the translator 
as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted a program booklet for the "2004 Chinese Elite Artist in New York Exhibition" at the 
Empire State Building. This booklet indicates that the petitioner was among more than fifty artists whose 
work appeared in the exhibition held at Fleet Bank on the first floor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he participated in a "charity bazaar for tsunami victims in 
South-East Asia and donated hisher art works" (January 2005). A January 2005 press release submitted by 
the petitioner from the Global Artist League, Inc. announces the organization's intention to hold the charity 
fundraiser in Times Square on Broadway between 43rd and 44th streets. The petitioner also submitted articles 
showing that the charity event was reported in Chinese language newspapers in New York such as World 
Journal, Ming Pao Daily News, and Sing Tao Daily. These articles were unaccompanied by certified English 
language translations as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted a February 5, 2005 letter from , Director, Center for International 
Art and Culture, New York, informing him that his work was selected for presentation at the Center's 
"Exhibition of Works by International Artists." The petitioner also submitted a flyer announcing the 
exhibition. There is no information regarding the reputation of this venue. 
The petitioner submitted a flyer and program booklet reflecting that he participated in a juried exhibition of 
the Taiwan Center Gallery in Flushing, New York in May 2005. The program booklet indicates that the 
petitioner was among dozens of artists whose work appeared in the exhibition. There is no evidence showing 
the reputation of this gallery. 
The petitioner submitted a letter inviting him to hold a solo exhibition in the gallery of the Queens Art 
Education Center at the Flushing Shopping Center in February 2005. As discussed, the petitioner also 
submitted January and February 2005 articles in Ming Pao Daily News (New York), The China Press (New 
York), The Liberty Times (Flushing, New York), and the "Tri-State Edition" of Sing Tao Daily promoting his 
exhibition. The English language translations accompanying these articles were not certified by the translator 
as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no information regarding the reputation 
of the Queens Art Education Center in Flushing, New York. 
It must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his work to be 
displayed. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that his paintings have been 
displayed at significant artistic venues consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. For example, there is no indication that the petitioner's works have consistently been featured 
along side those of artists who enjoy national or international reputations, that he has regularly participated in 
shows or exhibitions at significant venues devoted primarily to the display of his work alone, or that 
renowned art museums have displayed his work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a September 5, 2006 Certificate of 
Appraisal from the "U.S. Academy of Science for World Celebrity" stating that his oil painting "Water 
Village in Dusk" has an appraised value of $9,300. There is no evidence showing that the painting actually 
sold for that amount. Further, the appraisal certificate was issued subsequent to the petition's filing date. As 
discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The record does not include documentation (such as a Form W-2, Wage and 
Tax Statement, or income tax returns) showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any specific time period 
predating the filing of the petition. Further, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence showing that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to 
others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him 
among the highest paid artists in the United States or China. 
Page 12 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the perfarming arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the $9,300 appraisal of the petitioner's oil painting "Water Village in Dusk" 
meets this regulatory criterion. This evidence has already been addressed under the preceding criterion at 
8 C.F.R. $3 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to the 
performing arts (such as singing and acting) rather than oil painting. The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Nevertheless, the 
September 5, 2006 appraisal certificate was issued subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Further, this regulatory criterion calls for evidence of commercial successes in the form of 
"receipts" or "sales." An appraisal for a single unsold painting is not evidence of commercial successes in the 
petitioner's field. The record does not include evidence of "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner 
has achieved commercial successes as an artist in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The petitioner submitted a September 8, 2005 letter stating: "I write to confirm my intention 
to continue working in the United State [sic] in the field of Art, as described more hlly in the petition 
addressed to you on my behalf." This single sentence in the petitioner's letter does not sufficiently detail his 
plans to continue working in the United States. Further, we note that Part 6 of the Form 1-140 petition, "Basic 
information about the proposed employment," was left blank. As such, the petitioner has not submitted "clear 
evidence" establishing that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Nor is there clear 
evidence showing that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed.