dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MA TIER OF B-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: JULY 24, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an artist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner submitted evidence of a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten 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. After the Director 
then issued an identical decision, the Petitioner appealed a second time, and we again withdrew the 
Director's decision and remanded the matter for issuance of a new decision. The Director 
subsequently issued a third denial and certified that decision to us. In our certification decision, we 
affirmed the Director's decision denying the petition. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets at least three of the 
ten required evidentiary criteria, and that his work has garnered sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Upon review, we will deny both motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motio~ that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. · 
Matter of B-L-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's third decision found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the four evidentiary 
criteria that he claimed: published material about him in professional or major media, original 
contributions of major significance, author of scholarly articles, and display of his work at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. In our certification decision, we agreed with the Director that the 
evidence did not establish that the Petitioner meets the contributions criterion, but we did find that 
qualifying evidence had been submitted under the published material in media I and display criteria. 
While the Petitioner did not claim eligibility under the authorship criterion in his brief, we noted that 
the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner had written a scholarly article. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits additional evidence, and refers to previously submitted evidence, under the 
display criterion. He also submits four new letters from fellow artists to support his claim to original 
contributions of major significance to the field of art. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
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). It also 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. 
The Petitioner asserts that, should we find that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria 
under this classification, application of the "preponderance of the evidence" evidentiary standard in 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) should lead to a finding that he possesses the 
requisite national or international acclaim. He references our statement in the conclusion section of 
our decision, in which we state that one example of a missing indicator which would set him apart 
from others in his field is substantial press reporting, and indicates that such evidence already exists 
in the record. However, it must first be noted that this was only an example of possible qualifying 
evidence, and it was stated in the context of a hypothetical final merits determination. As will be 
further addressed in the next section, the Petiti~ner has not submitted evidence to establish that he 
satisfies at least three criteria. Second, as ackno~ledged in our previous decision, the Petitioner has 
submitted evidence of approximately a dozen P!.!blications which portray his work, but most of that 
evidence does not amount to media coverage about him and his work which would qualify under the 
media criterion. While all evidence of record; is considered in a final merits determination, the 
evidentiary weight of media materials which depict his work with little or no comment among that of 
1 On motion the Petitioner indicates that he believes that he meets the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) relating 
to published material about him in media. Since we held that he met this criterion in our previous decision, and the 
Petitioner docs not claim any incorrect application of law or policy regarding this criterion in his brief, we will not 
address this criterion in our decision. Had the Pctitiom:r established that he meets the requisite three criteria, we would 
have evaluated all of the evidence submitted, including that highlighted by the Petitioner in his brief, in conducting a 
final merits determination of his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
2 
.
Matter of B-L-
many other artists is significantly less than the interview that appeared rn 
The Petitioner further asserts that the evidence submitted about the book 
. shows his work and illustrates his impact on the field under the 
contributions of major significance criterion. However, he does not identify a pertinent precedent or 
adopted decision, or statutory or regulatory provision that would establish that our decision 
regarding this criterion was based upon the incorrect application of law or policy. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner has submitted four new reference letters from his fellow artists, and asserts that they 
constitute evidence of his contributions to the art world which have been widely recognized 2. All of 
the writers indicate that they are aware of the Petitioner ' s work, first as a leading member of the 
art movement in China, and later in his career in performance art. While other 
I 
evidence in the record supports these writers' :statements regarding his early work, they do not 
identify a specific contribution he made during this period. For example, after briefly summarizing 
the Petitioner's career, simply states that the Petitioner "has played a leadership 
position and has made an impact in his field." and identify specific 
performance art works done by the Petitioner in the latter portion of his career, but they do not 
indicate their impact on the field. As stated in our previous decision, reference letters that do not 
provide specifics regarding the Petitioner's contributions and their impact on others in the field are 
insufficient to establish eligibility under the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The assertions made by the Petitioner on motion do not establish that our previous decision was 
grounded in an incorrect application of law or policy. In addition, the new evidence submitted on 
motion does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or demonstrate his 
eligibility for this classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-L-, ID# 1320289 (AAO July 24, 2018) 
2 The Petitioner also submitted new evidence relating lo the published material in media criterion, but as noted in 
footnote 1, we found that he satisfied this criterion in our previous decision. Again, had the Petitioner established that he 
meets the requisite three criteria, we would have considered this new evidence in a final merits determination. · 
3