dismissed EB-1A Case: Art Conservation

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAY 0 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file 
a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�� :�� trativc Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts as an art 
conservator, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 11 53(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to individuals 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 determined that the 
petitioner· had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204. 5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets three of the regulatory criteria. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3), or 
evidence that satisfies 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 the beneficiary is one of the small 
percentage who is 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. RELEVANT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
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 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. 
� -- ------- -� -- - -- - �- -------------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 3 
U.S. 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 10151 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the individual's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the his or her achievements in the 
field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If 
the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS ' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that users examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
Specifically, the director found that although the petitioner submitted articles that were published in 
only the articles met 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) that requires "[p ]ublished 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." A review of the record of proceeding, however, 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims that the beneficiary meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page4 
does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that the 
beneficiary meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To 
qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 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 local community papers. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[ s ]uch 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted 28 articles from five 
publications - (1 article), (11 articles), :4 articles), 
(11 articles), and (1) article. Although not addressed by the director, the petitioner 
submitted abstract and summary translations for 23 of the articles that were published in a foreign 
language. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) specifically requires that any foreign language 
document that is submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full and certified English language 
translation. Because the petitioner submitted summary and abstract translations rather than full English 
language translations, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. Therefore, we will only consider the following articles: 
1. · April l4, 1997, by an unidentified 
author, 
2. 
December 31, 1994, by an unidentified author, . 
3. 'May 5, 1996, by 
4. 
,, 
March 10, · 1995, by 
and 
5. 
,, 
August 9, 2012, by 
Regarding items 1 - 4, the articles do not reflect published material about the beneficiary relating to her 
work. Although the articles briefly mention the beneficiary as the restorer of particular artwork, the 
articles mainly discuss artwork and are not about the beneficiary. For instance, regarding item 1, 
notwithstanding that the petitioner did not include the author of the material as required pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the article is about the restoration of the painting, 
with the article mentioning the beneficiary as carrying out the restoration. Regarding 
item 2, the article is about work on restoring a painting with a brief 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 5 
mention of the beneficiary working on the project. Regarding item 3, the article indicates that the 
beneficiary's studio was inaugurated and then discusses the artwork contained in the studio without 
otherwise addressing her work. Regarding item 4, although the article mentions the beneficiary once as 
being the art restorer, the article entirely discusses two pieces of artwork by None of 
the articles are about the beneficiary relating to her work consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Regarding the 
petitioner submitted screenshots from Wikipedia. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited Internet site, information from Wikipedia will be accorded no 
evidentiary weight. See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008).Z For 
instance, the petitioner submitted screenshots from Wikipedia entitled "List of newspapers in Italy" and 
Wikipedia provides conflicting information regarding the circulation statistics 
According to screenshot entitled "List of newspapers in Italy," Wikipedia 
reports that had readers in 2012, but according to the screenshot entitled 
' Wikipedia asserts that the publication has a circulation of As Wikipedia 
contains significant and conflicting circulation statistics, the evidence is not credible in demonstrating 
that is major trade publication or other major medium. The petitioner also 
submitted screenshots from regarding general background information on the 
publication but provides no evidence of the standing of the publication; the petitioner did not submit 
any independent, objective evidence demonstrating that is a major trade publication 
or other major medium. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not 
reliable evidence of major media). 
Regarding the petitioner submitted screenshots from 
who publishes and the screenshot from Wikipedia entitled "List of 
newspapers in Italy." According to has a circulation area of Italy 
and a circulation of which is not indicative of a major trade publication or other major medium. 
Further, according to the screenshot entitled, "List of newspapers in Italy," has a 
circulation of readers. Again, as demonstrated by the conflicting circulation statistics, the 
2 See also the online content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: General disclaimer, accessed on April 9, 2015, and 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a 
common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by 
people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information .... 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article 
may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond 
with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 6 
screenshots from Wikipedia, in addition to the umeliability of Wikipedia in general, are not credible and 
will not be accorded any weight. Regardless, neither circulation statistics indicate the publication is a 
major trade publication or other major medium consistent with the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Regarding item 5, the article is reflective of published material about the beneficiary regarding her 
work. The petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that is a professional or 
major trade publication or other major medium. The petitioner submitted screenshots from Wikipedia 
and documentation from regarding the 2014 circulation statistics of newspapers in the 
United States. The documentation indicates that has a daily circulation of 
readers. When compared to the top three newspapers in the United States according to 
circulation statistics are not reflective of a major trade publication or other 
major medium; rather a local publication serving the Florida area. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p ]ublished 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." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the 
beneficiary meets every element of this criterion. In this case, the petitioner submitted one article that 
was published material about the beneficiary relating to her work but did not demonstrate that 
is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. Therefore, we 
withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's origina l scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner established the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, the peti�ioner established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien 
has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 7 
reputation." A review of the record of proceeding, however, reflects that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director determined that the beneficiary's recommendation letters did not provide any description 
of a specific instance in which her performance was deemed leading or critical for any organization. In 
general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Director of Ancient Art, Historical, and Scientific Museums of Italy, 
who provided detailed information regarding the beneficiary's job duties such as lead art restorer for 
artwork located in public cathedrals, churches, government buildings, and palaces in Italy. 
Specifically, stated that the beneficiary "alone had the final decision to determine the 
artist's original intent when attempting to restore an object and determine whether the artist would have 
preferred minimal intervention to surface/appearance changing restorations." Moreover, the benefici�ry 
had the responsibility "for weighing the benefits of restoration against the risks by assessing whether 
intervention was worth the risk." In addition, mentioned specific art restoration projects 
that the beneficiary performed during her employment. Therefore, we find that letter 
provided sufficient information to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for 
an organization or an establishment with a distinguished reputation consistent with the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for 
this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner did not contest the findings of the director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments. Therefore, this issue .is abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. 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 court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on 
appeal). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion . 
.. - �-- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - ·- · ····· ···- ·--· - - - -- -- -- ------- -----------
(b)(6)
Page 8 
B. Summary 
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
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 has risen to the very top of his or her 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. As the petitioner has not done so, the proper 
conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting 
evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that 
the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification sought? 
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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
P.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.P.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.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.l(t)(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).