dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF X-L- DATE: OCT. 25, 2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I -140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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. § 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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief maintaining that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
~ 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
) 
(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 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 
'---------------------------
(b)(6)
Matter of X-L-
(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 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently lectures in the fine arts department of the 
and has exhibited his work in China and the United States. As the Petitioner has not 
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). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he 
also meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the 
scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F~R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the leading or critical role criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of 
proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner -meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-L-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he received the following awards: (1) silver award from the 
2010 bythe 
by the 
and 
(2) second place from the 
(3) selection for the 
by the and (4) first place in the 
by Although the Petitioner documented 
his receipt of these awards, he did not offer sufficient information or evidence establishing that the 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field as required by this 
regulatory criterion. 
The record of proceedings also reflects that the Petitioner received a full fellowship at the 
based on winning its 
'On appeal, the Petitioner presents various screenshots regarding 
background information for artist-in-residence programs. In addition, the Petitioner submits a letter 
from program director, who stated that acceptance to the residency is not for 
students but "a program designed to supporting working artists by providing all the necessary space 
and time for them to focus on creating their own art in the studio provided." While 
describes the residency program, as well as the selection criteria for the fellowship, the evidence 
does not show that the fellowship is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence consistent with the plain language of the regulation. For the reasons discussed, the 
Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating eligibility for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field fw which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that -his position as executive director for the 
meets this criterion. The Petitioner's role as executive director, however, is 
similar to a job position rather than a membership in an association. Although we will consider the 
Petitioner's membership with under this criterion, we will review the nature of his role for 
below under the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The record contains bylaws reflecting that an applicant for membership must meet, in part, at 
least one of the following requirements: (1) partook in important national art exhibitions at least 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-L-
twice or won at least one; (2) participated in academic exhibitions at least twice or won at 
least one; (3) achieved a senior title in prominent oil painting research; or (4) made outstanding 
contributions in carrying out academic activities in painting at the provincial, municipal, or district 
level. Further, an applicant is required to submit an application with two references from 
directors. While has membership requirements, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that they 
are equivalent to outstanding achievements consistent with the plain languag{ of this regulatory 
criterion. For instance, the Petitioner did not show the stature of academic exhibitions, so as 
to reflect that participation in its own exhibitions is considered an outstanding achievement. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not establish that directors are recognized national or 
international experts as required by the regulation. Accordingly, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). ~ ' 
The record indicates that the Petitioner submitted publicatiQns, such as 
(2008 and 2009), and 
which contained samples of his works. On appeal, the Petitioner presents background information 
regarding and states that he tried to obtain circulation data in writing but 
was told it was a trade secret in China. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. Although the above-mentioned publications include samples of the Petitioner's work, they 
are not "about" him. Besides crediting him as the artist of the works, there is no discussion of the 
Petitioner. The submission of publications that include examples of his works, without a discussion 
about him, is not tantamount to published material about the Petitioner consistent with the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown 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 allied field of specffication for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. Based on a review of the record of 
proceedings, however, we must withdraw the Director's findings for this criterion. In the 
Petitioner's cover letter at the initial filing of the petition, he indicated that in the capacity of vice 
dean, he "served as the judge of the Entrance Examination for the painting and art design program at 
The record includes a translation of an email from 
to the Petitioner requesting him to "keep the judge list and exam question secret." 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-L-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a Ranel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The email does 
not include sufficient information to support the Petitioner's claim that he served as a judge for1 the 
university's entrance examination. The email does not indicate whether the Petitioner served in the 
capacity of "a judge," or describe who or what was being judged. Not every instance of reviewing 
work as part of one's job duties falls under this criterion. Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not met 
his burden of demonstrating eligibility for this criterion, we withdraw the Director's findings for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record contains a letter from the 
the Petitioner's project, 
indicating approval for 
In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted a reflecting inclusion of his article, 
in the book, Further, the Petitioner 
presented documentation indicating publication of his article, ' 
Ill 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence ofthe alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field." Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for 
experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the 
articles. As the record does not include his pr~ject and articles2, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that they were peer-reviewed, contain any references to sources, or were otherwise considered 
"scholarly." For these 
reasons, the Petitioner,did not, establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner documented the display of his work at artistic exhibitions. For instance, the 
Petitioner's work was shown at the 
and at Thus, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied 
this criterion, and the Petitioner's documentation supports that finding. 
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). 
2 The Petitioner claimed that he submitted a photograph depicting two pages for his articles from 
however, the Petitioner did not include an English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-L-
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he meets this criterion based on his roles as executive 
director for and as vice dean for the The Petitioner submits letters 
from honorary president for and from dean an9 professor of 
In general, a leading role should be apparent by its position in the organizational hierarchy and the 
role's matching duties. Here, defines the Petitioner's role as executive director for 
as "the core administration in the organization" and describes his responsibilities as being in-charge 
of communicating, coordinating, and serving painters on behalf of characterizes 
the Petitioner's role as vice dean at as leading the teaching business in the department of fine 
arts, including determining policy, direction, and budgets. In addition, the Petitioner answered 
directly to the vice president of the university and dean of the art college. Based on the 
preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he 
performed in a leading role for and 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires the organizations or 
establishments to have a distinguished reputation. Regarding the Petitioner did not show that 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. The record, for example, does not contain evidence of 
standing in the field to demonstrate that it is considered a distinguished or eminent 
organization. 
Regarding the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from regarding 
for China. The screenshot indicates that such rankings 
were based on the "[i]nstitutions [that] were evaluated based on their research performance and their 
ratings by members of the academic community." ranked out of 
universities in China and globally ranked The Petitioner, however, has not established that 
such rankings demonstrate distinguished reputation consistent with the 
meaning of this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the Petitioner 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that 
meet at least three ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
6 
Matter of X-L-
of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see. also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of X-L-, ID# 99069 (AAO Oct. 25, 2016) 
7