dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 14, 2017 
CERTIFICATION OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a painter and performance 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)(1)(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We withdrew the Director"s decision, remanding 
the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision which, if adverse, should be certified 
to us for review. 1 The Director subsequently reissued an identical decision denying the petition 
without addressing or rectifying our concerns or certifying his decision for our review. The 
Petitioner appealed that decision, and we again withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the 
matter for issuance of a new decision. 2 
On remand, the Director denied the petition and certified it to us for review. The Petitioner submits 
additional documentation and a brief, contending that he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon review, we will affirm the Director's decision denying the petition. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants with extraordinary 
ability if: 
1 We noted that the Director's decision incorrectly identified and analyzed the Petitioner's field as table tennis, in 
addition to other errors. We have the authority to withdraw a decision and remand the case for further action. with an 
order that it be certified back to us if the new decision is adverse to the affected party. See USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0087, Certification of Decisions to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 4 (July 2, 20 13), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda; see also Adjudicator's Field Manual 3.5(c), I 0.18(a)(3), 
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink. 
2 
See Matter of 8-L-, 10# 148577 (AAO Feb. 28, 20 17). 
Matter of B-L-
(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 m 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). 
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. USCJS, 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.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 quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a painter and performance artist who has mainly exhibited his work in China and 
the United States. In his most recent decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
indicate that he received a major, internationally recognized award, and that he therefore must satisfy 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found, however, that he 
did not meet any ofthe initial evidentiary criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of B-L-
In his brief, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies four criteria: published material under 8 C.F.R. 
§204.5(h)(3)(ii), original contributions under § 204.5(h)(3)(v), artistic display under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 3 We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets the regulatory requirements of at least three criteria. 
Published material about the alien in prc~fessional or major trade publications or other mqjor 
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 o.fthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner provided material reflecting that he was interviewed in 
a professional publication. Therefore, the Petitioner demonstrated that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient~fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o.fmajor sign~ficance in the.field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his reference letters from fellow artists demonstrate his eligibility for 
this criterion. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must 
establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The reference letters summarize the Petitioner's career without demonstrating how his professional 
experience and accomplishments are considered original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 4 For instance, artist described the Petitioner's earlier career in the 
5 and discussed his more recent focus in Chinese contemporary art. however, 
did not indicate how the Petitioner's artwork or career has significantly influenced the field. 
Similarly, some of the reference letters attest that the Petitioner's artwork 1s "significant" or 
"important" without explaining the basis for their opinions. For example, stated that 
3 While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the scholarly articles cntenon under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), he does not continue to do so in his brief, nor does the record support a finding that he meets it. 
Specifically, although the Petitioner has indicated that he co-authored the book 
the record contains a translation of the book cover that does not identify an author of the publication, an 
introduction authored by and selected pages of the book featuring commentary for various artworks. including 
the Petitioner's work on page 292. The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner authored the material and it 
was of a scholarly nature. Accordingly, we will not further address this criterion in our decision. 
4 While we discuss a sampling of the references letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 A separate letter from describes as a type of Chinese art that "represents Chinese 
coastal cities and its commercial culture." 
.
Matter of B-L-
the Petitioner "has many significant and multiplex art creation[s], such as [E]arth performance art." 
In addition, indicated that the Petitioner has "won certain influence in 
contemporary art circles," and claimed that the Petitioner "quickly became an 
important member of the The authors, however, did not describe why the 
Petitioner's work is significant, important, or influential to the field. 
Further, many of the letters provide examples of the exhibitions where the Petitioner's artwork has 
been displayed. For instance, principal at stated that he ''was 
impressed" with his piece performed at in 
Although explained why he was fascinated by the artwork, he did not show how the 
Petitioner's work has impacted the field. See 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). Likewise, the Petitioner provides a letter from who indicated that the 
Petitioner helped him create a personal visual arts show and exhibition for his artwork at various 
venues in New York. While claims that the Petitioner helped him with his 
career, he did not demonstrate how this assistance resulted into a contribution of major significance 
in the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, afl'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USC IS) 
conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the 
field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. Att 'y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 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 m m 
China. Accordingly, the Petitioner established that he satisfied this criterion. 
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 contends that he meets this criterion based on evidence that he was a founding artist 
of a curator and director for and an early organizer and participator for 
festivals, including the and 
4 
.
Matter of B-L-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires a petitioner to perform in a leading or critical 
role for "organizations or establishments." Here, the Petitioner has not identified an organization or 
establishment affiliated with the movement, the individual artist or the 
festival events, nor has he sufficiently explained or demonstrated how his role would qualify as 
leading or critical to such entity. Even we assumed his role for festivals constituted a leading role 
for organizations, he has not shown that the festivals have a distinguished reputation. For example, 
the Petitioner submitted a article reflecting that the "a 
Chinese art show" for which the Petitioner is credited as one of the organizers, included an empty 
wall to highlight the plight of artist The article notes that the show was open for "only a 
few hours before 'pressure' was applied" by the and it closed the 
exhibition. Although it mentions the the article is about the political 
response relating to and does not show that the festival enjoys a distinguished reputation in 
the field. Accordingly, he has not established that he meets the regulatory requirements for this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 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. USCIS 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 the case here, although the Petitioner presented approximately a dozen publications that included 
his work alongside many other Chinese artists, without evidence that sets him apart from others in 
his field, such as substantial press reporting, he has not established he is considered by his field to be 
in that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Even 
though the Petitioner submitted one publication that featured him and his work, he did not show that 
this single article is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his exhibitions 
at festivals and events represent a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Overall, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's art has garnered national or international acclaim in the field. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
ORDER: The petition is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-L-, ID# 880078 (AAO Nov. 14, 2017) 
5