dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 2 2 201'bffice : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative 
Appeals Office 
www_uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page '2. 
Discussion: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 8, 2014. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on February 5, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the petition, filed on June 6, 2013, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts, as a painter, sculptor and multi-media artist, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
director determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien' s achievements. See section § 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien, as initial evidence, can present evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of 
specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner files additional supporting documents, including a November 25, 2013 
article and a 2013 document entitled ' ' The petitioner 
asserts that 
she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and 
(vii). For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
under at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small 
percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly , we will dismiss the petitioner's 
appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
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 extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
United States 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 H.R. 723 
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through initial evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), the court concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns about the 
significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead 
of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the petitioner has not satisfied 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not demonstrated that she is one of the small 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, or has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior 0-1 Visa Petitions 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not prechide USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. The regulatory requirements for an immigrant and 
non-immigrant alien of extraordinary ability in the arts are dramatically different. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines extraordinary ability in the arts (including the performing arts) as 
simply "distinction," which is further defined as follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree 
of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that 
a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field 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." While the ten immigrant 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) appear in nonimmigrant regulations, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii), they refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business or athletics. Separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary 
ability in the arts are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). The distinction between 
these fields and the arts, which appears in 8 C.F.R. § 214(o), does not appear in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). As 
such, the petitioner's approval for a non-immigrant visa under the lesser standard of "distinction" is not 
evidence of her eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant visa. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that her receipt of a $15,000 from the , a 
$1,000 , and a $7,000 meet this criterion. The petitioner has 
not shown that she meets this criterion. 
First, the evidence shows that 
that the petitioner received the $15,000 called the 
after the filing of her petition. 
Specifically, according to '' filed on appeal, the introduction of the 
resolution authoring funding of the was on June 19, 2013; the final action, which 
was the adoption of the resolution, was on July 16, 2013. The petitioner filed her petition on June 6, 
2013, before she received the Indeed, the first time the petitioner filed evidence 
of her receipt of this was in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), 
four months after the filing of her petition. Although the ' ' notes that 
the Consortium approved the _ recommendations on May 22, 2013, the document 
indicates that the Board of County Commissioners of Florida, appropriated the 
funds for the on July 16, 2013, after the petitioner filed her petition in June 2013. 
It is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time 
of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). The petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of a future qualifying 
award. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N 
Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that US CIS cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") 
Second, even if we were to consider the 2013 _, the petitioner has not shown that it 
is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. The " 
' states that only residents within five counties of Florida could apply for the 
, and that the petitioner was one of 14 of over 300 applicants selected to receive a 
_ The document provides that the selection process involved application review by 
a panel of regional arts experts, "a national panel of three out-of-state arts experts" and 
recommendation approval by the Board of Directors. 
According to the 
consisted of 
Associate Curator at the 
Activities Report 2012-2013, the national panel 
Executive Director of in Texas; 
Assistant in the Department of Education and Public Programs at the 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the "participation of the national panel of judges is prima 
facie evidence that this prize was national in recognition, notwithstanding its regional applicant 
pool." The petitioner, however, has not supported her assertion with any legal authority. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
At best, the evidence shows that the constitutes a locally or regionally recognized 
award or prize, which is insufficient to establish that it is a qualifying award or prize under the 
criterion. Although the selection process included review by experts who live outside of Florida, the 
petitioner has not shown that this review renders the for which only residents of 
five counties in Florida could apply, a nationally or internationally recognized award. In addition, 
the record lacks evidence relating to the prestige of this fellowship award or evidence that the 
national or international media reported about the fellowship program or its award recipients. 
Indeed, according to Artists and Communications Manager, 
Department of Cultural Affairs, the fellowship program "offers the 
largest regional, government-sponsored artists' grants in the United States" and that the petitioner 
received the fellowship award because she is one of "the best artists living and working in 
___ ' (Emphasis added.) 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that her $1,000 constitutes a qualifying 
award or prize under the criterion. According to _ Founder and Executive Director 
the petitioner received the grant through the 
which is designed to assist practicing, professional and emerging artists residing in 
The applicant pool of this grant is thus geographically restricted to artists residing in the 
This restriction is not indicative that the grant constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized award or prize for excellence. In addition, Ms. states that the criteria 
for receiving the grant are "professional growth/career advancement," "professional commitment" 
and "planning/confirmation." In her explanations for these terms, Ms. does not indicate that it 
is a grant that recognizes a recipient's excellence in the field of endeavor, as required under the plain 
language of the criterion. Rather, the purpose of the grant is to assist artists in their professional 
development. 
The evidence shows that the petitioner's $1,000 funded her participation in the 
from March 2008 to April 2008. The petitioner 
has not shown that her participating in this program constitutes a qualifying award or prize. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that being invited to participate in a residency 
program is the equivalent of receiving an award or prize, let alone a nationally or internationally 
recognized award or prize for excellence. Moreover, according to _ Program Director of 
, the petitioner was chosen to participate in the residency program because 
she is "an artist of high ability," who is "highly skilled in [her] craft and ha[s] the intellectual ability 
to articulate [her] artistic expression to other artists-in-residence and visiting artists." These 
selection criteria are insufficient to show that the petitioner's participation in the residence program 
constitutes her receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in 
her field. 
Fourth, the petitioner has not shown that her receipt of a $7,000 grant constitutes 
her receipt of a qualifying award or prize under the criterion. According to the letter from 
Board Chair, the amount "does not constitute full funding of [the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
petitioner's] proposed activities." In addition, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence 
relating to the selection process of this grant. The record lacks information relating to how many 
people applied for the grant, how many people received the grant in 2010, and what criteria the 
judges considered when selecting individuals for the grant. The record also does not establish that 
the grant's aim was to recognize an artist's excellence in the field. Rather, as Ms. letter 
indicates, the grant sought to fund the petitioner's proposed activities, which at the time of the grant, 
had not yet started or completed. The plain language of the criterion requires that the petitioner 
received the award or prize in recognition for her excellence in the field. As such, grants or 
fellowships that fund the petitioner's future projects or activities do not meet this criterion. 
Moreover, the evidence submitted to show the recognition of the petitioner's prizes or awards is 
from the entity that issued or funded the prizes/awards. Such evidence has limited evidentiary value 
in demonstrating any recognition beyond Florida. The petitioner has not supported this evidence 
with more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 
selection of the prizes/awards outside Florida. 
Finally, the record includes evidence of the petitioner's other achievements, including being named 
the best artist in by the , receiving a $2,940 grant from the 
, and 
wining first and second place finishes in contests in Argentina. On appeal, however, the petitioner 
has not continued to assert that these achievements constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized awards or prizes for excellence. As such, we conclude that the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record su2ports this 
conclusion. The petitioner has submitted articles about her from the and 
which are professional or major trade publications or other major media. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has presented published material about her in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The 
petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page8 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner, 
relying primarily on reference letters, asserts that she meets this criterion. The evidence in the 
record shows that the petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not shown that her work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. 
First, the petitioner relies on evidence that she has displayed her work in galleries and museums. 
These displays, absent evidence that the petitioner's work constitutes "contributions of major 
significance in the field," are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding evidence of the display of the petitioner's work, 
which is a criterion we conclude below that the petitioner meets. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). If 
the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from display. As such, display of one's work is 
not sufficient evidence under the contributions criterion absent evidence that the display represents 
contributions of "major significance in the field." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In Kazarian, the court reaffirmed its holding that our 
adverse finding under this criterion was not an abuse of discretion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in 
considering whether a display is a contribution of major significance, we look at the impact the 
display has in the field. 
The evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the petitioner's display has had an impact 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. According to 
the petitioner's "reach is global, with pieces exhibited at venues such 
as the 
' The petitioner was involved in an art exhibition called 
'presented in an abandoned amusement park in Germany. 
According to Ms. . the petitioner's influence "is felt in Germany ... [and] her home country 
of Argentina." Ms. however, provides no specific information on how the petitioner has 
influenced arts in Germany or in Argentina. At best, the evidence shows that the art world has 
noticed the petitioner's work and has considered it to be worthy of showing. This consideration, 
without evidence that her work also has affected and/or advanced the field in a significant way, is 
insufficient to show that the petitioner's work constitutes "contributions of major significance in the 
field," as required under the plain language of the criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she need not provide evidence that other artists emulated or 
copied the petitioner's work. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions 
of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients 
or customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers,_ F. Supp. 2d _, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). As such, the petitioner must provide evidence that 
her work has impact in the field as a whole that is consistent with contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
Second, a museum's acquisition and exhibition of the petitioner's work is insufficient to show the 
petitioner meets this criterion, absent a showing that the petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance in the field as a whole. According to 
acquired the 
petitioner's ' ' which is a bearskin rug textile made of the "skin" of stuffed 
teddy bears, for its exhibit ' ' Mr. explained that "[ e ]ach year, 
thousands of visitors will see and be inspired and affected by it." He 
further states that for "an artist to have her work exhibited in the permanent collection of a major 
metropolitan museum is the hallmark of her accomRlishments and represents a major impact in the 
field." Although the evidence shows that the considered the petitioner's artwork worthy of 
becoming a part of its permanent collection, it is insufficient to show the piece constitutes a 
contribution of major significant in the field. The modem and contemporary art collection 
includes the work of an unspecific number of artists; neither Mr. nor other evidence in the 
record indicates that all the pieces in the collection constitute contributions of major 
significance in the field. Indeed, Mr. provides that the "modem and contemporary art 
collection of features internationally prominent artists as well as emerging talents," who might 
not have been established artists or artists who have made contributions of major significance in the 
field. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "for an artist to have [her] work on permanent display in 
a major museum is ... prima facie evidence of an original contribution of major significance." The 
petitioner, however, does not support her assertion with any legal authority. 
Moreover, the article discusses the 
exhibit and references artists whose work is part of the exhibit. 
The article, however, does not mention the petitioner or her ' ' This lack of 
reference is not indicative of the piece being a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Although the article published on 
discusses the petitioner's piece in three sentences and includes a photograph of the 
piece, the article makes no mention of ' or the petitioner's impact in the 
field. 
Third, evidence that the petitioner's work has been accepted in an art show is insufficient to show 
that it constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. In 
selected the petitioner's project' to include in its section. The letter 
from indicates that the demand for participation is "strong and almost three 
times as many applications were submitted as there are booths available." Mr. states 
that the art fair exhibits only a few local artists. An online printout from 
indicates that the selection committee "is made up of prominent art gallerists, who make their final 
selections based upon criteria that remain consistent from year to year. Through this rigorous 
selection process, ensures that our galleries present work of the highest quality." The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that one of the selection criteria was that the 
piece constitutes a contribution of major significant in the field, such that it has affected and/or 
advanced the field in a significant way. At best, the selection of the petitioner's work to be included 
in the art fair shows the petitioner's work is worthy of showing. According to the 
article has "43,000 visitors, 
and countless receptions and exhibits [that are] crammed into four days in early December." The 
petitioner has not shown that her work being one of the "countless ... exhibits" is indicative of her 
have made contributions of major significance in the field. Additionally, as discussed aboye, there is 
a separate criterion for display of the petitioner's work, which we conclude is a criterion that the 
petitioner meets. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Fourth, evidence that the petitioner has been commissioned to create art and enjoys recognition in 
the region is insufficient to show she meets this criterion. According to 
Executive Director and Chief Curator of the 
the museum "commissioned [the petitioner] to create a site-specific installation entitled 
on the sidewalks in the grounds surrounding the Museum." Ms. states that "the impact of 
[the petitioner's] works have gone far beyond mere gallery exhibitions, in that they impact the 
thousands of viewers who annually visit 1 and the thousands more who 
stroll the museum's grounds." According to Ms. , the petitioner is "recognized for her many 
public art installations in " her work "is experienced by a large segment of the population," 
and that her "public art displays have been commissioned by the local and county governments and 
have their imprimatur." The evidence in the record does not establish that any of the petitioner's 
work constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. The facts that a museum and local 
government entities have commissioned the petitioner to create art and allowed public access to the 
artwork are insufficient to show the significance, let alone major significance, of the work in the 
field. At issue is the petitioner's impact in the field, not impact to the public. At best, the evidence 
shows that the petitioner is a working artist, who has been asked to work and who has received 
compensation for her work. 
In 2013, the named the petitioner the best artist in According to Ms. 
this "is testament to the impact that [the petitioner] has had on this community." 
According to Mr. this "means that [the petitioner] has had a major impact on the 
public as an artist." This accolade signifies that the petitioner enjoys a level of recognition in 
and possibly the region. This recognition is insufficient to show the petitioner's 
impact in the field as a whole. As such, it does not establish that she has made contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
Fifth, the evidence has not shown that the petitioner's use of material or her emphasis on a 
collaborative work environment is original, such that she is the first or one of the first people to have 
done it. According to the petitioner's references, including Ms. , the petitioner "com bin[ es] 
many disciplines as she pursues ongoing collaborations with creative individuals from various 
backgrounds," and unlike other artists, the petitioner "works inclusively and socially, finding new 
access points for communication to create public, intensive, and process-oriented works." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
According to Assistant Professor, Department of Art History, Theory, and 
Criticism, School of the the reviews of the petitioner's work "are by and 
large glowing and fascinated with her use of process and materials, in particular her weaving of 
human hair in her sculptural work, installations, and performances." Mr. states that the 
petitioner is "unique and influential because of the variety of materials and media she uses." Mr. 
does not provide any specific information relating to the basis of his conclusory statement. 
users need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 17 56, Inc. V. United States Att 'y Gen.' 
745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). In short, the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that 
these aspects of the petitioner's work are original. Indeed, according to Dr. the petitioner 's 
is "quite close to a major feminist such as without 
being derivative; as in all good art, it is an expansion on the previous idea that nonetheless evokes 
it." Moreover, even assuming the petitioner's use of material and her emphasis on a collaborative 
work environment are original, the evidence does not establish these aspects of her work constitute 
contributions of major significance in the field, i.e., they have had a significant impact or have 
caused a fundamental change or advancement in the field. 
Sixth, on appeal the petitioner submits a December 2013 article to show that she 
meets this criterion. As noted, it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility 
for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation Of future 
activity at a level consistent with contributions of major significance. See Matter of Wing's Tea 
House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. As such, the petitioner's 
accomplishments and activities that postdate the filing of her petition do not establish that she meets 
this criterion. In addition, the December 2013 article, entitled ' • 
does not discuss the impact or influence of the petitioner or her work in the field. Rather, it is about 
how real estate developers are using art to help them sell real estate properties. As such, the article 
does not establish that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the field. 
Finally, the record contains reference letters in addition to those specifically discussed above. None 
of them, however, establishes that the petitioner meets this criterion. Vague, solicited letters from 
colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 3 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. (9th Cir. 2010). The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and have been considered. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm 'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may, as this decision has 
done, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien 's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at I 122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)) 
The reference letters in the record primarily contain vague claims of contributions without 
specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions 
rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. For example, Mr. asserts that 
the petitioner is "unique and influential," without providing details supporting his conclusory 
statement. See Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822 at *6 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight 
to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
17. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholar! y, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
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 director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. The petitioner has submitted evidence showing that her artwork has been shown in art 
galleries and museums. Specifically, her was part of the 
exhibit, her ' was exhibited on the grounds of the 
and her were exhibited at the 
Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of the display of her 
work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
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). 
In her initial filing, the petitioner asserted that she met this criterion. In the director's RFE, the 
director concluded that the petitioner did not submit any evidence in support of this criterion. In her 
response of the director's RFE, the petitioner did not challenge the director's finding. The petitioner 
has also not challenged the director's finding on appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of 
evidence in the field of endeavor, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence 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 alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence 
is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the 
field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final 
merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice , 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).