dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imnrigration 
- &Q " 
,"%&++- 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 1 4 20f~$ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 9 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 
Page 2 
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(b)(l)(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) Pnority 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 intemational 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 lev$ 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 intei-national acclaim at the very top level. 
to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
' In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted eight 
r creations. This eiridence, however, was not sufficient to 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or intemational acclaim, or that her achievements have been 
recognized in her field of expertise. On November 10, 2004, the director denied the petition, finding that the 
petitioner's evidence did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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, intemational 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. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submits a Certificate of Honor (dated December 1997) with an accompanying English language 
translation indicating that she received a "First Class Award of ~itional Grand Design Contest." The record, 
however, contains no evidence of publicity surrounding this contest or evidence showing that the petitioner's 
award enjoys a significant level of recognition. Simply receiving an award certificate with the word 
"national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. The petitioner must provide evidence 
showing that her award enjoys significant national or international stature. In this case, the record contains no 
documentation from the awarding entity or print media to establish that the petitioner's Certificate of Honor is 
a nationally recognized award. Furthermore, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3}, any document containing 
foreign language submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) shall. be accompanied by a full 
English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accgmate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The translation 
accompanying the petitioner's Certificate of Honor was not certified as required by the regulation. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classzjkation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major medic To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. dn alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a' publication with limited 
distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would 
qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small locai community papers.' 
The petitioner submits a brief article (only three paragraphs) entitled "The Artful Teapot: 20'~-~entury 
Expressions from the Kamm Collection." Aside from the petitioner not providing the name of the author of 
this article (as required by the regulation), it has not been shown that the publication in which this article 
appeared has a substantial national readership. Furthermore, we note that the petitioner herself is not the 
primary subject of this article.* The plain wording of the regulation, however, requires "published materials 
about the alien." If the petitioner herself is not the primary subject of the material, then it fails to demonstrate her 
individual acclaim. We find no evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner been the primary subject of 
sustained national or international media attention. 
1 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
2 In the second paragraph, the petitioner's name was listed along with eleven other teapot artists. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner re-submits the eight photographs of what are alleged to be her teacup creations, stating that the 
items were displayed at her "individual exhibition of 1999." The record, however, contains no evidence 
showing that such an exhibition 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 (Cornrn. 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 satis6 this criterion simply by arranging for his or her work to be 
displayed or sold. In this case, the petitioner has not shown that her exhibitions enjoy a national or 
international reputation, or that she has regularly participated in exclusive exhibitions devoted solely or 
largely to the display of her work alone. 
We find that 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 with 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 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 how 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), afyd. 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. 8 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.