dismissed EB-1A Case: Art Curation And History

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19. 20 17 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification of the Beneficiary. a curator and historian of 
as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(I)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)( l)( A). This 1irst preference classification makes 
immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or internation al acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their tield 
through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that the Bcncticiar y met any of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria. of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she m
eets six criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appea l. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 licld through 
extensive documentation. 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work tn the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term ·'extraordinar y ability"' refers only to those individuals in .. that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor:· 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
.
Malfer of A-T-A-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major. 
internationally recognized award). Alternativ ely, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three ofthe ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards. memberships. and published mater ial in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demon strates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US'C/S. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria. considered in the context of a tina! merits determination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013): Rijal v. USC IS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysi s is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its qualit y," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece or evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility. both individuall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence. to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is a curator and historian of As the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary has received a major. internationall y recognized award. she mu st 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeaL the Pet itioner 
asserts that the Benefic iary meets the following criteria: member ship at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). scholarly atiicles at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). display at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Upon review. we 
conclude that the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain 
language requirement s or at least three criteri a. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation ofthe alien ·s membership in associations in thefie /Jfhr 1rhich classification 
is sought. H'hich require outstanding achievements oft heir memhers. wjudged hy recogni::eJ 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfie!Js. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). 
The record contains a letter of appointment, dated April 2017, from 
acknowledging the Beneficiary's membership in the 
This letter announces the Benefici ary's appointment as 
of due to her .. outstanding achievement during the past five yea rs," her 
"assignment as Head of the · and her "prominent 
reputation in the field of · The record , however. docs not include 
2 
.
Matter ol-4.-T-A-
supporting documentation (such as bylaws or admission standards) showing that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of'the alien 's parlicipalion. either individually or on a panel. as ajuJge o{the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of' spec({tcation fiH· which classification is sought . 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner offers a letter from an Ati Historian at the 
m Italy, attesting to the Beneficiary's role in judging artists from 2006 to 2013. In another 
letter. the publisher of the magazine states that the Beneficiary has been 
in charge of judging and selecting artists to mentor and exhibit which has resulted in successful 
exhibitions programs. also asserts that the Beneficiary '·evaluated which national 
and international exhibitions are most important and where they have to be presented in the 
magazine." We conclude therefore that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientj(lc. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or husiness-rc:lated 
contributions oj'major significance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary, '·one of the \Vorld's f{)remost experts [in] 
. .. ''discovered a complete period of art history was unkno\vn to the American public, 
so she undertook to correct this matter by working discretely with the major holder of the art to 
secure donation of a major gift of to American museums to till this gap." 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary 's original artistic contribution is her discovery of the 
gap in in American museums and in her eft(lrtS to facilitate this donation. 
The record contains a letter from 
renowned Art Collection · 
who indicates that he is the "owner of the 
and the founder of the · 
Foundation.''' He states that he authorizes the Beneficiary to donate a pa1t of his collection to a U.S. 
institution of her choice and that ''[t]his donation offer ... is tied to [the Beneficiary's] presence 
within the U.S. over the period of years to prepare , organize. manage. execute . and complete the art 
transfer from contract over permanent loan status to donation status. to accompany the resulting 
exhibitions of the collection within the USA write the respective catalogs and to educate 
institutions' and mu seums' staff." In addition . asserts that "[t]here are only very few 
experts of world\vide, and [the Beneficiaryl is the only expert in this field able to 
perform the above mentioned tasks and authorized to transfer my collection to the USA, and to help 
a U.S. institution to present the art to the American public... On appeaL the Petitioner submits a 
"Certificate of Achievement" presented to the Petitioner in March 2015 for her 
"contributions of major significance to the tield of ' 1 
1 
The Petitioner does not claim that this ·'Certificate of Achievement" renders the Beneficiary eligible under the aw·ards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Regardless of this fact. the record docs not establish that this certificate is a 
.
Ma!ler qf'A-T-A-
As an initial matter, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support that there is a gap of 
in the United States. The Beneficiary's affid avit and the letter f)·om 
attest to this, but the record does not contain suflicient independent. objective evidence to 
support that conclusion. In her letter, at indicates, .. Largel y 
unknmvn in the United States. artists from the would strongly complement our 
holdings and allow a more nuanced view of the art from the interwar period ... This indicates that the 
possesses some and that the donation will complement 
this genre of artwork that is already at the museum rather than filling a gap of nonexistent art. 
Furthermore, the Beneficiary's qualifying contributions must have already been realized rather than 
being potential, future contributions. Eligibility must be established at the time of tiling the benetit 
request. 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.2(b)(1 ), (12). While the Beneficiary claims to have made this discovery of a 
gap in she has not yet implemented her plan to carry out the donation of thi s 
artwork. The record doe s not show that she has made similar contributions in the tield by carrying 
out the donation s of und erre presented art to demon strate that she has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
Finally, even if \Ve were to consider the Beneficiary's discovery of a gap in 
as her contribution, the record does not establish that this is of major significance in the field . 
states that three artists in particular from the are or '·significant importance'" 
for their collection as "they are underrepresented or not yet represented in our collection:· This 
reflects that the gift of artwork from the to would add to 
collection already there, benefitting the mu seum. but the doe s not detail how it is of major 
significance to the tield as a whole. 
The record doe s not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has original contributions of major significance 
in the field that have already been realized. Furthermore. the evidence does not indicate that the 
Beneficiary has previous experience preparing, organizing. managing, exec uting. and completing an 
art transfer that is shmvn to have major significance in the field. Therefore, we conclude that the 
record does not establish the Beneficiary meet s thi s criterion. 
Evidence o{ihe alien\ authorship ofscholarly articles in thejield in pro/dssional or mc(jor 
trade puhlications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). 
The Petitioner submits an essay about the work of artist in 
The record , however . does not establi sh that 
this art catalogu e is a professional or major trade publication or other torm of major media. 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary has not met this criterion. 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for exce llence in the field. 
4 
.
Matter of A-T-A-
Evidence r?l the display of the alien's lvork in the field at artistic exhihitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(vii). 
The Petitioner asserts that '"as an m1 historian rather than an artist, the Beneficiary has displayed her 
work in the field by setting up exhibits, co-producing catalogs, consulting \Vith art magazines. co­
owning a gallery , introducing m1 programs."' The record contains a transcription of the leaflet from 
an exhibition in 2006 for the in stating that the Beneticiary 
will provide the introduction preceding a ballet ensemble. The record also contains transcriptions of 
invitation postcards announcing an exhibit at in listing the Beneficiary's 
email address for contact information. This evidence does not provide details about the exhibit or 
about the Beneficiary's role. While the Beneficiary has been a consultant for magazine, as 
discussed above, the record does not sufficiently establish that her work has been on display at 
m1istic exhibitions or showcases. In addition, we find that the record does not contain sufficient 
details about the gallery that the Beneficiary co-owns and what level of artistic work can be 
attributed to her in that regard. 
The record includes a copy of the acknowledgements page from the book 
in which the Beneficiary is thanked for coordinating 
the book. It is unclear what the Beneficiary's coordination of this book entailed. The evidence does 
not reflect that the examples discussed by the Petitioner amount to a display of her \vork in the tield. 
The Petitioner therefore has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence !hal the alien has perj(mned in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
estahlishments thai have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Beneficiary's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Beneficiar:y"s performance in this role should 
establish \Vhether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's commission to facilitate the major donation on hehal f 
of for demonstrates that she has pcrt()fmed a leading or critical 
role. The Petitioner references a letter from for in which she 
expresses her gratitude for "fthe Beneficiary"sl willingness to share her expertise in the selection of 
art\vork, as well as her assistance in locating the necessary funding tor the eventual transport of 
artv,;orks from Germany to the United States:· This criterion requires that the Beneficiary "has 
performed in a leading or critical role·· f()l' an organization with a distinguished reputation. Here, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary \Viii carry out a leading role by facilitating the donation of this 
artvmrk from the collection. The expectation that she will perform this function does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has already performed a leading or critical role t()r an organization 
with a distinguished reputation. Therefore. she does not meet this criterion. 
l'vfatter ofA- T-A-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary is not eligible because the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence 
of either a qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus. we do not need to fully address the totality of the 
materials in a tina! merits determination. Kazarian. 596 F.Jd at I 19-20. 2 Nevertheless. we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mafler ofA-T-A-, ID# 737937 (AAO Dec. 19. 2017) 
2 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary"s extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( I )(i\)(i) of 
the Act, we need not determine whether she is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under 
section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(ii).