dismissed EB-1A Case: Art Curation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20245185 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 23, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an art curator with a degree in architecture, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement, that is, a major , internationally recognized award. If that petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x), including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles . 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 
demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (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 final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a degree in architecture from the National University 
Argentina, in 1997 and established her own architectural studio in that country, while also serving for 
ten years onl I faculty. The Petitioner entered the United States in 2014 as a B-2 nonimmigrant 
visitor, and later changed her status to that of an F-1 nonimmigrant student. Since movingtol I 
Texas, she has started two businesses, specifically an art gallery and a company that makes fashion 
accessories. The record contains a two-year job offer, which the Petitioner accepted, for employment 
as a curator with a I art gallery. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of the criteria, pertaining to display at artistic 
exhibitions. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets all six claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion 
pertaining to display. We further conclude that she has submitted sufficient evidence to show that she 
participated as a judge of the work of others. 1 We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
1 Letters in the record indicate that the Petitioner served on a jury at the Municipal Museum of Art I and ona 
jury to select works for an exhibition mounted in tribute to a former professor. The Director determined that the 
submitted evidence "does not show that the beneficiary's contributions involved reviewing any work or otherwise acting 
as a judge of the work of others." We disagree. The letters, on their face, describe judging activity. Issues such as "the 
criteria for participation ... as judge" and the significance and scope of the events where the Petitioner served as a judge 
would have been relevant in the final merits determination, if the proceeding had advanced to that stage, but they do not 
affect the threshold question of whether she served as a judge of the work of others. Because the Petitioner's work 
described above establishes that she participated as a judge of the work of others, we need not address the Petitioner's 
assertion thatherwork as a curatoralsoentailsjudgingthe work ofothers. 
2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner was a recipient of the Prize at thel I International Biennial of Architecture 
in 1991. The Director determined that the award was regional rather than national or international. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats her prior assertion that the I I Biennial "is one of the most 
important architectural events inl showing the workof"prominent figuresofinternational 
architecture" from around the world. The regulation requires that the prize or award itself is nationally 
or internationally recognized; the Petitioner cannot meet her burden of proof solely based on the 
reputation of the awarding entity, or of the event where the award was presented. The Petitioner has 
submitted background materials about the Biennial but these documents do not mention the Prize. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Prize is nationally or internationally recognized. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner initially submitted an article about the Petitioner's construction of architectural models 
from thel 12009 issue ofDeco &Arquitectura. The Petitioner asserts that "Deco & Arquitectura 
is a major Argentine trade publication," but cites no evidence to support this assertion. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted another article, from the Spanish 
online publicationLa Cara Buena del Mundo, profiling the Petitioner's U.S. company that makes fashion 
accessories using I obtained from an interior decorating firm. First, we note that 
the article is dated I eight days after the petition's filing date. The Petitioner must meet 
all eligibility requirements as of the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Also, the Petitioner must "establish thatthe circulation( onlineor in print) orviewership is high compared 
to other statistics." 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/po1icymanua1. The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit circulation data for either publication. On appeal, 
the Petitioner acknowledges that she did not provide circulation data, but she contends that this "does not 
mean that [ each publication] is not a major trade publication." The Petitioner asserts: "These publications 
are intended to be read by individuals within the art, design, and architecture industry, which publish 
articles that are related to that field. Thus, establishing that these publications are considered major trade 
publications." The specialized subject matter shows that Deco & Arquitectura is a trade publication, but 
not every trade publication is a major trade publication. The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that 
the publications qualify as "major"; there is no presumption that every trade publication is a major trade 
publication. Here, the Petitioner has not established thatDeco &Arquitecturais a major trade publication. 
The Petitioner has also not submitted evidence to support her claim that La Cara Buena del Mundo is a 
trade publication "intended to be read by individuals within the art, design, and architecture industry"; the 
Petitioner has not submitted information about the publication's content apart from the one submitted 
article. But the larger point is that the Petitioner has not established that La Cara Buena del Mundo 
qualifies as a major trade publication or other major media. 
3 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted that she performed in a leading role for her own 
architectural studio that she had operated in Argentina. Because the Petitioner founded and ran the 
business, we agree with the Petitioner that she had a leading role with that studio. But she must also 
establish that the studio has a distinguished reputation, defined as marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence or befitting an eminent person. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
The Petitioner asserts that her studio's distinguished reputation is evident from its "prestigious and 
renowned clients." The identification of some of the studio's clients, however, does not establish that the 
Petitioner's firm has a distinguished reputation in the absence of fmiher documentation. The record does 
not establish how and why those clients came to choose the Petitioner's studio, nor does it provide 
information about the projects the studio undertook for those clients. 
We note that one of the claimed clients is, itself, an architectural design firm. The Petitioner submitted 
printouts from that firm's website, indicating that the architectural design firm has won more than 20 
awards and honorable mentions "in national and international competitions." The Petitioner has not 
established that her own studio has earned similar accolades. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signtficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from an accountant, indicating that the Petitioner earned over 
Arg$50,000 per year, whereas "[t]he income of other artists did not exceed ... $22,000.00 per year." The 
letter cites no sources and includes no supporting evidence. The English translation of the letter refers to 
the Petitioner as an "architect-artist" ("arguitecta-artista" in the original Spanish) while comparing her 
earnings to "[t]he income of other artists" ("artistas")rather than other "architect-artists." 
The Director determined that "the record does not contain evidence of the beneficiary's salary and 
remuneration," and that the Petitioner did not submit data to allow a comparison of the Petitioner's 
earnings to those of others in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner quotes the figures from the accountant's 
letter, but these figures do not directly document the Petitioner's income; specify the services that the 
Petitioner performed; identify any source for the claimed average income of "other artists"; or show that 
the comparative figures relate to individuals performing similar work to that of the Petitioner. We agree 
with the Director that the letter does not provide enough information to make the comparison that the 
regulatory language demands. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the recognition of her work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The submitted evidence 
depicts a largely local reputation, first inl land later in 
Furthermore, we note that some of the Petitioner's evidence concerns her work in architecture, and 
other evidence relates to her work as an art curator, while a small amount of material in the record 
addresses her work making fashion accessories. While the Petitioner refers to herself as a "visual 
artist," it is not apparent that the use of this umbrella term is sufficient to place all her different 
endeavors into one identifiable, collective "field." This is particularly relevant in the context of the 
Petitioner's architectural work, which appears to have ended when she left Argentina in 2014. The 
Petitioner must establish that she seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
claimed extraordinary ability. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner relies heavily on 
her architectural work in her claims to have satisfied several criteria, such as those relating to prizes 
and a leading or critical role. The Petitioner's business ventures during seven years in the United 
States have not involved architecture, but rather working as an art curator, and making fashion 
accessories, and therefore she has not shown that she intends to continue working in the field of 
architecture. As a result, any recognition she may have previously earned as an architect is of 
peripheral relevance to her intended work as an art curator and creator of fashion accessories. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5