dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvices 
Oflice of Adminisrmrive Appeals MS 2W0 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
DEi: 0 2 2010 
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. 5 I 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 9: 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
V $ Perry Rhew, , , 
Ch~ef, Adm~n~strat~ve 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 "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive 
documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's ultimate 
conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought 
I. Law 
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. 
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 10ISt 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases: 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
lh. filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9 Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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. 5 204.5@)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enter rises, Inc. v. United States, 229 R. F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9' Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 8 204,5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
This petition, filed on July 27, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an artist. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5; 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The vetitioner did not initiallv claim to meet this criterion. On av~eal. the ~etitioner submits a 
. . 
to him irom ihc. 
\taking: 
On behalf of the 
 pleased to advise you that 
your submission 
 tied for first place in the 
jurying. Both of the jurors were very impressed with all your submissions, but this piece was 
particularly intriguing and impressive. 
The first prize and second prize have a combined monetary value of- which we have 
divided equally. Please find a cheque enclosed. Congratulations! 
rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. There is no~documentary evidknce demonstrating that the petitioner's prize is recognized 
beyond the presenting organization and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the visual arts field. Moreover, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) expressly requires evidence of qualifyingprizes or awards in the 
plural. The petitioner has documented his receipt of only a single non-qualifying prize. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
clussification is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as 
,judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing 
incorporated a society in 
 entitled the 
The petitioner also submitted evidence documenting the activities of the 
 from 200 1 - 2003 such 
as meeting agendas and a newsletter dated August 27, 2002. The submitted documents identify the 
petitioner as founder, president, and a member OF the board of directors of the For instance, the 
agenda for theon November 29,2002 includes a- 
prepared by the petitioner stating: 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
I was looking in the mean time for a local space to act as an arts community in the 
And it happened very soon with I took over the in 
January 2002. 
For me it was a full time commitment as a director of the Society as well as the manager of the 
- Without the financial and labor support from this would 
never have been possible. 
The August 27, 2002 
 newsletter states: 
is locally pre\enting ~crviccs in 
 in thc 
All anis[> and an group> arc in\.ired to pmic~pare. 
has a board of directors who are selected once a year in January. 
is getting support from 
 and learning m 
- 
Members: Artists who have had art show in 
 are automatically members of - 
The preceding documentation indicates that artists who have had an art show at the local = 
managed by the petitioner automatically become members of the 
 There is no 
evidence showing that therequires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the visual arts. Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(h)(3)(ii) expressly requires qualifying membership in "associations" in the plural. The 
petitioner has only documented a single non-qualifying association membership held by him. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or mc~jor trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. 
Page 7 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, 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 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would ualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 4 
containing foreign language submitted to USClS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The 
English language translation accompanying the article in was not certified by 
the translator as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no documentation (such as 
circulation evidence) showing that equate to professional or 
major trade publications or other m 
The petitioner submitted a May 11, 2010 letter from a television reporter for the 
stating that she interviewed the 
petitioner on June 19, 2008 and that his interview was broadcast on a program entitled 
on June 26,2008. The preceding televised interview post-dates the petition's June 
27, 2007 filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider the petitioner's June 2008 televis 
Nevertheless, there is no supporting evidence establishing that the 
is a form of major media in the United States or any other country. Further, a television interview does 
not equate to "published material about the alien." [Emphasis added.] 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
3 Even with ndtionally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, hut in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
letter does not indicate the 
participation as an exhibition juror. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, 
there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N 
Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, letter lacks specificity and details, and is 
unsupported by any corroborative evidence demonstrating the petitioner's actual participation as a 
judge of the work of others. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner had juried 
the ''25th Anniversary celebration of exhibition and the - 
as of the petition's June 27, 2007 filing date. As previously 
discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103,2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Without evidence documenting the specific dates of the 
petitioner's participation, the petitioner has not established his eligibility as of the petition's filing 
date. 
On au~eal, counsel states: ''[The petitioner's] participation as a iudge of other artists was in the 
Work with Art Programs director in scheduling and organizing events and selecting 
artists' work to exhibit. 
Work with Art Programs director in formatting call for artistic submissions and 
adjudicating submitted works to select those appropriate to the gallery's events and goals. 
Act as primary director at in the selection and types of works exhibited. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others" in the field. The 
undated, self-serving list of responsibilities prepared and submitted by the petitioner on appeal does not 
equate to evidence of his actual participation as judge of the work of others. For instance, the list does 
not specify the art work judged by the petitioner, the names of the individuals whose work he 
evaluated, and the date the selections were performed. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103,2(b)(2)(i). 
Page 9 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does 
not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In this case, there is 
no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner had actually participated as a judge of the work 
of others at the time of filing the petition. Moreover, the phrase "a judge" implies a formal 
designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually, as specified by 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance involving routine 
duties inherent to one's job responsibilities. Additional deficiencies pertaining to the submitted 
documentation will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the 
submitted evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or being among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major sign(ficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support and documentation pertaining to his art work. 
states: 
publishes a calendar every year that highlights the art and culture of 
the community. Nationally and internationally acclaimed artists are invited to submit 
original pieces of work for publication in the calendar. In addition, as part of our 
aion'sannual and street festival, we have organized the = 
In my function as organizer of the I came to meet and know [the petitioner]. 
Prior to personally meeting [the petitioner], I became familiar with his work as I investigated 
who would be the appropriate artists to participate in this event. As I do in reviewing the 
work of all potential participants, I took every opportunity to learn about [the petitioner's] 
background and work. What is readily apparent is that [the petitioner's] contributions go 
beyond the highly acclaimed original pieces of contem orary art he has created, but to the 
education, promotion and intellectual aspects of the art world. For art to flourish. 
renew itself, and remain vibrant, there have to exist places where an artist can feel free and 
safe to express him or herself. Whether in Iran or in and now, hopefully in the 
United States, [the petitioner] has produced his own fine art and created the safe havens for 
other artists to thrive. 
We note that arranging for the display of one's work is inherent to the visual arts. It does not follow 
that that every visual artist who successfully exhibits his own work or facilitates the exhibition of 
others' artwork has inherently made an original contribution of major significance to the field as a 
- 
Page 10 
whole. Further, there is no documentary evidence to support opinion that the 
petitioner's original pieces of contemporary art are "highly acclaimed" in the visual arts field. 
Moreover, does not specify which of the petitioner's pieces of contemporary art, 
educational accomplishments, and artistic safe havens equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field or provide specific examples of indicating the extent of their impact on 
others in the field. 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2005 where we met each other in 
was the opening of a new center for arts and cultural events in the 
Area. He was in charge of the gallery and the website of 
F - 
where I displayed my art. 
After this meeting I found out more about [the petitioner] an is artistic family who had just 
moved from He came to my gallery with his wife who is a professional= 
traditional singer and also I came to know that their two teenage daughters were also 
professional ballet dancers in We were a good match to be associated with each 
other in Painting and music. I just hosted a fantastic art show of his personal collection in 
June; his impressionism and post impressionism works in oil in - . . . He 
played in his opening that I enjoyed the combination of music and painting both by the 
same artist. 
1 want to share with him some of the future planning for projects, one 
of them, the celebration of and the greatpoet of the 13'~ century. 
He is an outstanding political artist and through his political cartoons reminded the world of 
the mass execution of political prisoners by His art for peace series 
in his 91 1 exhibition inwas also extraordinary. He is also one of the persistent artists 
who were in search of identity in the modem art of Identity is one of the struggles of 
the contemporary arts in 
I believe [the petitioner] is an exceptional talent. His multi-dimensional and extraordinary 
ability in science, politics and arts has given him a unique personality. His art also brings 
together multiple languages of visual arts (painting, calligraphy, digital video and animation), 
music and poetry. This unique quality of [the petitioner's] ability contributes a highly 
original value and significance to the fine arts field of endeavor. 
describes the petitioner's activities and art projects, but there is no supporting evidence 
showing that the petitioner's oil paintings, political cartoons, series, calligraphy, 
Page 11 
digital vldeoh, a~~imation. muhic. poetry. and in\~olvcmcnt with equate to 
or~ginal anistic contribution> of major \igniticancc in thc ficld. 
3 graphic arti\t and painter resitling in \late>: 
I first became familiar with [the petitioner's] work in 1983, when an art exhibition that 
included his work was launched at This 
exhibit featured many knownartists, including [the petitioner]. This exhibit, and the 
artists involved, first came to my attention when they were trying to establish the first 
This association was to support the 
professional artists for their rights and benefits. 
I first met [the petitioner] in January 2004 and have since followed his extraordinary 
development and achievements much closer. I have seen some of his original art work and 
cartoons, and I found particularly very interesting his work in the called 
"the 911 exhibition" presented in in held on Sep. 12, 
2002. His use of color and form, creating virtual spaces was particularly appealing. 
[The petitioner] is not only an exceptionally multi talented artist (painting, graphic art, 
music) with his own unique style, but also an innovative researcher. His research in 
the Persian classical painting and his attempt to reinterpret it in a global context, 
has contributed immensely to our understanding of contemporary art and is a promising 
intellectual endeavor to bridge different cultural heritages. [The petitioner] has a prominent 
position among a new generation of artists who have tried to discover and also connect to 
their cultural origin, and consequently contributed more to the global art in general. 
[The petitioner's] achievements and his contribution to the world of art and his message for 
peace and understanding in this particularly tense period is an asset for any country. 
does not specifically identify the works exhibited by the petitioner at - 
in or explain how those works have significantly impacted the visual 
arts field. Further, there is no supporting documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's = 
is recognized throughout the field as an original contribution of major 
significance. We note here that the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding "display of the 
alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
 The petitioner's art 
exhibitions will be addressed there. With regard to petitioner's research, 
does not provide any specific examples of how it has influenced others in visual arts field 
or been applied by independent art scholars. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
original work is recognized beyond his personal acquaintances at a level consistent with a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
Page 12 
Although I had previously met [the petitioner] in 
 it was only after he recently 
interviewed me about the subject of contemporary art and the identity crisis among 
the past generations of modem artists that I became familiar with him and his art. 
This interview is to be ublished in - two online- 
magazines in USA and 
 run by [the petitioner]. 
I reviewed [the ~etitioner'sl activities through various sources such as his websites, 
- 
sic] the online encyclopedia, and other credible sources. 
 Interestingly, I 
ddh[. A 
Iscovere t at [the petitioner] has been associated with 
 the famous Art 
professor, critique, and research professional who has contributed immensely to fine arts in 
for the past 40 years. I am confident to say that [the petitioner] proves to be an 
exceptional and talented Artist with multi-dimensional capacities in the fine arts (painting, 
graphic and music), as well as in web design and journalism. He is also a top research 
professional in the field of fine arts. 
[The petitioner's] research in 
 classical painting, which is a deep study 
of the classical miniature painting, is a valuable source of reference for understanding the 
- - 
aesthetics of traditional Persian painting as well as a source of inspiration to interpret our 
contemporary art in a global context. Many of artists, who are lost for the lack of 
cultural identity, will benefit from such analysis of their art history. [The petitioner] also 
studied 
%ii 
sical music to find out the similar artistic values in order to understand 
and improve 
 contemporary music in a global context. I really appreciate his highly 
original and significant contribution to fine arts. 
states that he was not familiar with the petitioner his artwork until being interviewed by 
petitioner recently and that his observations are based a review of the petitioner's activities through 
various sources such as petitioner's websites, 
 and other credible sources. 
 does 
not specifically identify the "other credible sources." Regarding information from jm 
online encyclopedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user- 
edited internet site.4 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008). 
Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. - 
%dine content from 
 is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. 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 reauired 
. .. . 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . .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 
Page 13 
briefly mentions the petitioner's paintings, graphics, web design, journalism, research, 
and music, but there is no supporting documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's work in 
these areas equates to original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
identifies himself as "an art professor teaching in many colleges and universities in 
[The petitioner] joined my art history and art critique courses as a student and became a 
member of the in my own new private institute 
called were actively involved in several art projects until he and his family 
in 1996. 
[The petitioner] is a gifted contemporary artist with a multi-dimensional capacity in science 
and politics. 
The etitioner] founded an institute of visual arts and music called - & (1983-1996). It was an art gallery, a center for fine arts education and training 
and hosting meetings and art projects of distinguished artists and scholars such as myself.. .. 
During this period of 1983 to 1996 [the petitioner] made highly original and significant 
contributions in two ways: 1) the originality of his fine art work, including oil paintings to 
commemorate the massacre of political prisoners by the regime in the summer of 
1988, political cartoons, series of portraits (artists, poets, writers and musicians in a 
unique watercolor style) in a colander [sic], hosting and organizing a center for artists where, 
under his protection, new ideas could flourish in the otherwise hostile atmosphere. 
In 1989 [the petitioner] studied the roots of arts and as a result became actively 
involved in the aesthetics of Negargari (Miniature painting) and traditional music. 
He made these interests as a focal point of academic research, part of which was published in 
limited editions by the University in 1991. This work was of major significance 
because he was one of the few artists with a contemporary style who also remained original 
and true to his culture as well. The importance of his contribution in this regard cannot be 
overemphasized. 
2) His important contributions continued, again not just his fine art and painting 
contributions. but his organizing and hosting o~~ortunities for artists to be exhibited " - - .& 
internationally. After immigrating to the petitioner] continued to contribute to the 
arts community on an international level. He was the first in to host such 
Page 14 
I learned recently that [the petitioner] has extended his research to classical music 
and is going to perform and exhibit both music and visual arts in a contemporary presentation 
in the US. His synergistic combination of visual art and classical music certainly 
constitutes a highly original and significant contribution to fine arts. 
There is no supporting evidence documenting the reputation of the petitioner's - commemorative oil paintings, political cartoons, and series of watercolor portraits in a 
calendar or their significance to the field at large. Further. with regard to the uetitioner's "academic - - 
research . . .which was published in limited editions by the . in 1991," we 
note that the regulations include a separate criterion for authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. - 
5 204,5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the 
regulation views contributions of major significance as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary meet at least three separate criteria. Nevertheless, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner's academic research is widely viewed by independent art scholars as an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. Finally, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
the and Artpars exhibits organized by the petitioner, his visual art works, and his 
classical music equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
This is to verify that [the petitioner] has been associated with Service on a 
contract basis as a graphic artist since September 2008. He has been in charge of daily 
design, production and updates of graphics and images for our website and in house projects. 
His artwork including logos, illustrations, slide shows and promotional materials are 
published on our website. . . . 
The petitioner's work for beginning in September 2008 post-dates the filing of the petition. As 
previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
53 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider subsequent developments in the petitioner's career in this proceeding. Moreover, the plain 
language of the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(v) requires original artistic "contributions of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to his immediate employer. 
I am writing . . . to confirm [the petitioner] as a well known artist nationally as a result of his 
creative and community work in and the US. [The petitioner] joined in 
2004 and has been cooperating with us in many art programs since then. On December 16, 
Page 15 
2007, I participated in a grand opening exhibition of thewhere 
he held his solo art exhibition. 
C 
is a well-known organization founded by [the 
petitioner] in 2000. On behalf of I delivered a speech in that event in support of his art 
and his art activities in the US. 
The petitioner's solo exhibition at the grand opening of his - on 
December 16, 2007 post-dates the petition's July 27, 2007 filing date. As previously discussed, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's December 16, 
2007 exhibition in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that his work equates 
to artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
On auueal. the uetitioner submits what counsel vaguely identifies as "several original contributions - - 
selected for ublication." The petitioner's submission includes a publication entitled m 
bearing the dates There is no evidence 
indicating the significance of this church publication or its circulation. Moreover, it appears to have 
been published subsequent to the petition's filing date and therefore cannot be considered in this 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. $$ 103,2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The 
petitioner also submits his artwork in the March 9, 2004 issue of and his ink drawings in a 
1985 calendar. There is no evidence demonstrating the circulation of these printed documents or 
that they constitute original contributions of major significance in the visual arts field. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated that the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner did not establish that his work could be considered 
contributions of major significance in the field, outside of those with whom he has worked or been 
associated. We concur with the director's finding. In this case, the record lacks evidence showing 
that the petitioner has made original artistic contributions that have significantly influenced or 
impacted others in his field at large. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on others in the visual arts field, nor is there specific documentary evidence in 
the record demonstrating that the field has significantly changed as a result of his work. According 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5; 204,5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but 
of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of his 
references, there is no evidence demonstrating that his work is recognized beyond his personal 
acquaintances such that it equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
We cannot conclude that the reference letters and the documentation pertaining to the petitioner's 
exhibitions and activities are sufficient to meet this criterion. The preceding letters, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Mutter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
Page 16 
See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an artist 
who has made original contributions of "major significance." Without supporting evidence showing 
that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
states that the petitioner's "academic research . . . was published in limited editions by 
II in 1991." The record, however, does not include documentary evidence 
of the petitioner's scholarly articles. As stated previously, 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. at 165. A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. Q: 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does 
not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does 
not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant 
authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and 
place are available. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that evidence of 
his scholarly articles do not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, letter does not equate 
to secondary evidence or an affidavit. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted a self-serving "List of juried individual and group exhibitions in 1984- 
1996)." The self-serving claims in the petitioner's list are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof 
for this regulatory criterion. As stated previously, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. 8 C.F.R. Q: 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, 
only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must 
submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason 
the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. 
Page 17 
5 103,2(b)(2)(ii). The petitioner has not established that evidence of his juried individual and group 
exhibitions in do not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, his self-serving list does not equate to 
secondary evidence or affidavits. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a promotional flyer announcing the December 16, 2007 Open 
House of his This event post-dates the petition's July 27, 2007 filing 
date. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the petitioner's December 16, 2007 Artpars exhibition in this proceeding. 
pertaining to this evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether 
the submitted evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or being 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner perfoms in a leading or critical role for them 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted documentation identifying him as founder, president, 
and a member of the board of directors of the but there is no evidence showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation in the arts. Moreover, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(viii) expressly requires evidence that the alien has performed in a 
leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural. Therefore, even if we found 
that the has a distinguished reputation, which we do not, a leading or critical role in a single 
distinguished organization does not meet the plain language of the regulation. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). A final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarim opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
Page 18 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(2); 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." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (viii). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(iv), the petitioner has not 
established that judging art exhib and performing his 
responsibilities as president of the ustained national or 
international acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(2) and (3). There is no evidence documenting the 
reputations of the and the art exhibitions involving the petitioner. Without supporting 
evidence demonstrating the significance and prestige of the events in which the petitioner 
participated as a judge of the work of others, we cannot conclude that his involvement was indicative 
of sustained "national or international acclaim" at the very top of the visual arts field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(vii), it should be emphasized that a 
visual artist does distinguish himself as among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field simply by arranging for his work to be displayed. Moreover, the statute and regulations 
require the petitioner to demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" in his field of 
endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has not 
efrom 2001 to 
in 2007 demonstrates sustained national 
or international acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Seesection 203(b)(l)(~)(i) of the Act, ~u.s.c. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(2) and (3). In this case, there is no indication that the 
petitioner's works have consistently been featured along side those of artists who enjoy national or 
international reputations, that he has regularly participated in exhibitions at significant venues 
devoted primarily to the display of his work alone, or that his exhibited work has been singled out 
for critical acclaim beyond the local communities where he resided. The evidence submitted by the 
petitioner for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(vii) is not sufficient to demonstrate a level of distinction that sets 
his art exhibitions apart from those of most other artists in his field nationally or internationally. 
While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of her references, the evidence of record 
falls short of demonstrating his sustained national or international acclaim as an artist. The 
conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 19 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a 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. 
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 at 1043, affd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review 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. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.