dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Irtrrnigration 
Servic~s 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF A-T-A- DATE: FEB. 21, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
\ 
PETITION: FORM I-HO, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tennis academy, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts as "a curator and historian of Expressive Realism Art." 1 See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). Thi.s first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustaineg national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive docurrientation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. We affirmed the Director's denial, 
concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), but 
not at least three of the ten criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), as required. We subsequently 
denied the Petitioner's motion to reopen the matter. ' 
The Petitioner has now filed its second motion, a motion to reconsider the matter. It asserts that we 
erred in om previous decision, and claims that it has presented evidence satisfying five additional 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii). Upon review, we will deny the 
Petitioner's second motion. 
I. LAW 
. A motion to reconsider must establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Moreover, a motion to recons(der must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement 
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy 
(DHS). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the 
requested immigration benefit. ,, 
1 The Petitioner initially offered the Ben~ficiary a "Business Development~& Sales M[anagemen]t'' position, but then 
withdrew the offer, claiming that it had mistakenly thought that a job offer was required to classify her as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. . · 
.
Matter of A-T-A-
In addition, the regulation specifies motion filing requirements, providing that a petitioner must submit 
"a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of 
any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not submitted "a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable 
decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and 
status or result of the proceeding." It therefore has not met the motion filing requirements. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). In the alternative, for the reasons wewill 
discuss below, the Petitioner has not shown that .we should grant its motion to reconsider the matter. 
As explained in our' decision dismissing the appeal, the Petitioner has shown the Beneficiary's 
"participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is. sought." It has therefore satisfied the judging 
\_ . criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner, however, has not established that we erred 
in our most recent decision denying its motion, concluding that it has failed to-satisfy two additional 
criteria. 2 ' · 
Docum,entation of the alien ·s membership in associations in the field.for-which classffication 
i~ sought, whichrequire outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On motion, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's membership ih the 
, her appointment to be the head of the association's 
Donation Department, and her selection to handle art donations for the . . 
satisfy the membership criterion. The Petitioner advanced the same arguments on appeal and in 
support of its previously fifed motion. We addressed these arguments as well as the relevant evidence 
in our two decisions, one dismissing the appeal, and the other denying the motion. Specifically, we 
explained in our motion decision that while has certain membership requirements - including 
requiring candidates to submit written applications that are then evaluated by the board - the 
documentation in the record does not confirm that the association requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their'disciplines or fields. 
The record lacks credible evidence on how the board evaluates candidates or that demonstrates the 
assessment is completed by recognized hational or international ·experts. · 
Moreover , as . discussed in our motion decision, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's 
appointments, which might illustrate her ability to carry out certain pr9fessional obligations, constitute 
2 The . Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not demonstrate, that the Beneficiary has received a rnajor, 
internationally recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). As such, it must provide documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x) to satisfy the initial evidence requirements. 
2 
.
/ 
Matter of A-T-A-
her membership in qualifying associations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On motion, the Petitioner 
has not pointed to any pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or 
statement of USCIS or DHS in support of its p·osition that professional appointments qualify as 
membership in associations. As such, it has not established that we erred in our findings as relating 
to this criterion. · 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic. scholarly. artistic, athletic. or business-related 
~ontributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
; 
The Petitioner argues on motion, as it did on appeal and in support of its previously filed motion, that 
the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field based on her role in 
facilitating the donation of underrepresented art work to public and-educational institutions. One 
reference letter indicates that her work has "allow[ ed] a more nuanced view of the art from the interwar 
period." While reference letters in the record voice the authors' appreciation for the Beneficiary's 
effort in closing the gap in expressive realism art in U.S. museums, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that her actions rise to the level of contributions of major significance in the field, such that they have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or that her work is original, such that she was the first 
person or one of the first people to have helped in closing the gap in a particular area of art. 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has the Beneficiary made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. Not all contributions are 
qualifying. Rather, a petitioner must offer documentation confirming that vthe contributions are of 
major significance. Major significance in the field may be shown through evidence, such as major 
llledia profiling or reporting, verifying that a beneficiary's work has been widely praised and 
recognizyd throughout the field. Reference letters, such as those in the record, that lack specifics and 
simply use hyperbolic language do not add value and do not show that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with 
Certain Form 1-140 Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicator '.s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22. 2, AFM 
Update ADll-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. For example, 
the one-sentence letter from art historian and exhibition curator indicatingthat 
"there is a gap in in the US museums and that closing this gap is of major 
significance to the field," does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, as the record 
does not substantiate the conclusory statement. On motion, the Petitioner has not presented any legal 
authority establishing that we erred in our findings as relating to this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major medici. · 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On motion, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's one-page article about . an 
artist, published in Game Over _satisfies this criterion. 3 It contends that Game 'Over is "an art catalog" 
and that "by definition ... [it] is a professional publication in the field of art." It also claims that the 
. . 
3 While we neglected to discuss this criterion in our motion decision, we had explained our reasons for c~ncluding that the 
Petitioner did not meet this criterion in our decision dismissing the appeal. · . · 
3 
.
Matter of A-T-A-
publication "cannot be considered anything less than a major trade publication as its only purpose is 
. to present and promote art." The Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence in the record confirming 
that the publication is "an art catalog" that qualifies as a professional or major trade publication. Its 
statements that the record does not substantiate are insufficient to show that it satisfies this criterion. 
'Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that the article is scholarly. "In general, [a scholarly 
article] should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or 
pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article." See USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. In contrast, the Beneficiary's article is written as a one-page letter to 
with a photograph of his art installation, but does not include other elements commonly 
found in scholarly articles. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that this writing qualifies as a 
scholarly article. Based on these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibUions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner acknowledges on motion, as it did previously, that the Beneficiary is not a painter or an 
artist, but claims that she satisfies this criterion because she was a "book coordinator" for 
and served as a curator for exhibits in the gallery she owned. The field in which the Beneficiary 
claims extraordinary ability is expressive realism art. The Petitioner, however, has not established 
that her duties as a book coordinator and curator relates to her work in that specific field. 
Moreover, although the editor of -~ thanked the Beneficiary. for "coordinating this 
wonderful book," he did not explain what she did specifically. On motion, the Petiti.oner claims that 
her duties included "edit[ing] all eJements of the book for style, substance, and organization," 
"review[ing] the layout," and ''oversee[ing] all aspects of production.". The record, however, lacks 
sufficient evidence, such as statements from the author and editor, to support these assertions. As 
such, the Petitioner has not shown that w~ erred in our determination as relating to this issue. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner has offered two 2018 letters from artists who had displayed their 
work in the Beneficiary's gallery, these letters are insufficient to confirm that she meets this criterion. 
The letters contain verbatim passages relating to the Beneficiary's responsibilities as a gallery owner. 
The identical wordings lead us to question if the letters credibly reflect the authors' independent 
observations. See Ye v. US. Dep 't o_f Justice, 489 F .3d 51 7, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) ( stating that nearly 
identical language in separate asylum affidavits may support an adverse credibility finding). 
Regardless, the letters provide that the Beneficiary "personally invited, curated, exhibited, and 
mentored ... talented young artists," but do not specificaIJy explain what she did or otherwise 
demonstrate that her activities associated witl-i' being a gallery owner constitute the display of her work 
in the field of expressive realism art at artistic exhibitions or showcases. As such, the Petitioner has 
not shown that we erred in concluding that the Beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter of A-T-A-
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). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion because she has performed in a 
leading or critical role for the which hired her to facilitate its donation of 
artwork to one of the three According to a letter 
from the owner of the foundation, he authmized the Beneficiary to donate a part of his collection to a 
U.S. institution of her choice to present the art to the American public. 
To establish a leading role, the evidence must show that the foreign national is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to qemonstrate if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. Here, the record, including ·the letter 
from the founciation's owner, does not show that the Beneficiary has led the foundation. Similarly, 
although the Beneficiary has been entrusted to facilitate the donation of artwork, the evidence is 
insufficient to demonstrate that she has performed in a critical role, such that she has contributed in a 
way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. 
Id. The Petitioner has offered limited information on the foundatiori's activities besides donating 
pieces from its collection. Furthermore, the record, while verifies the foundation's donations, does 
hot include sufficient documentation establishing that it has a distinguished reputation, as required 
under the regulation. As such, the Petitioner has not shown that we erred in concluding the Beneficiary 
does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider the matter will be denied because it does not meet the motion 
filing requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C), (a)(4). In the alternative, the motion will be 
denied because it does not establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-A-, ID# 2060602 (AAO Feb. 21, 2019) 
5