dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
1~Viogdamkk4dto U.S. Citizenship 
--ll.rsnded and Immigration 
Inv~d- n? bnarml 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OC?' 1 4 2~ 
58 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
$Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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@)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 ths 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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
9 204.5(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. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This ~etition. filed on Octob ber 19, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
7' The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be 
cts that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since March 2001. 
Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is 
reasonable to expect the petitioner to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The 
petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation as an artist in this country. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted six photographs of what are alleged to be her paintings. 
This evidence, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioher's sustained national or international 
acclaim, or that her achievements have been recognized in her field of expertise. On November 17, 2004, the 
director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
g 204.5(h)(3). 
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, international 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 of 
extraordinary ability. On appeal, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner re-submits the six photographs of what are alleged to be her paintings, stating that the paintings 
were displayed at "individual exhibitions in different years." The record, however, contains no evidence 
showing that any such exhibitions ever took place. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
It must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her work to be 
displayed or sold. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that her works have 
been displayed at significant national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have 
been featured along side those of artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated her regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted 
largely to the display of her work alone. The evidence presented by the petitioner is not sufficient to show 
that her exhibitions enjoy a national reputation or that participation in her exhibitions was a privilege 
extended to only top national or international artists. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed <in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that she performed a leading or cstical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or qstablishment. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an identity card indicating that she is an employee of the Liaoning Art 
Institute. The petitioner states: "I am the leading pailtfing artist of Liaoning Art Institute that is the leading 
art institute in China." 
The record, however, includes no letter from an official of the Liaoning Art Institute discussing the 
importance of the petitioner's role there or confirming h&r assertion that she is the institute's "leading painting 
artist." Nor is there any evidence showing that this art institute has earned a distinguished reputation when 
compared to other art institutes throughout China. In this case, the petitioner has not established that she has 
performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that her involvement has earned her 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
On appeal, the petitioner has listed a dollar amount under two previously submitted photographs of what are 
alleged to be her paintings. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner actually earned the 
dollar amounts appearing under the photographs. As noted previously, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See 
Matter of Soffici at 158, 165. There is no evidence showing thatithe petitioner's compensation is significantly 
higher than that of other painters. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner claims that the two photographs discussed under the preceding criterion are evidence of her 
"commercial successes." The plain wording of tlvs criterion, however, indicates that it is intended for 
"performing" artists such as musicians and actresses rather than the petitioner's occupation. Nevertheless, the 
regulation calls for commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting alleged 
photographs of one's work cannot satisfy criterion. The record contains no evidence of documented "sales" or 
"receipts" of the petitioner's artwork. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligbility pursuant to section 203@)(l)(A) of the Act and the may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 pow he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. 9 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.