dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 2 9 2014 
INRE: 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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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:/Jwww.uscis.gov/fomis for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank yo~ 
~(~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 docwnentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. § 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. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is November 19, 2013. On January 
22, 2014, the director issued the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving 
the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on April 28, 2014. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a statement regarding his eligibility. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 101st 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. !d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial ofa petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.
1 
With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 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." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the 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 did not 
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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Fair and Consistent Standard 
Within the appeal, the petitioner refers to the application of a fair and consistent standard and points to a 
USCIS policy memorandum dated August 18, 2010.Z The petitioner then notes that he holds a 
nonimmigrant visa in a similarly phrased classification . The August 18, 2010 policy memorandum, 
which USCIS subsequently updated with a December 22, 2010 memorandum on the same subject, 3 
discusses a "consistent standard" for Form I-140 adjudications but makes no mention of an overall "fair 
and consistent standard" encompassing both immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions with a similarly 
phrased standard. As discussed below, the standard for the nonimmigrant visa that the petitioner holds 
is not the same standard as the one for the immigrant classification he now seeks. 
B. Previously Approved 0-1 Nonimmigrant Petition 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, 
the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a 
different, if similarly phrased, standard. First, the regulatory requirements for an immigrant and non­
immigrant alien of extraordinary ability in the arts are dramatically different. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) 
defines extraordinary ability in the arts (including the performing arts) as simply "distinction," 
which is 
further defined as follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree 
of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that 
a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is on of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." While the ten immigrant criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) appear in the nonimmigrant regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), they 
refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or 
athletics. Rather, separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). The distinction between these fields and the arts, 
which appears in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o), does not appear in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). As such, the petitioner's 
approval for a non-immigrant visa under the lesser standard of "distinction" is not evidence of his 
eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant visa. 
In addition, it must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Da_ta Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
2 Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form 1-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41) (Aug. 18, 2010). 
3 Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I -140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field 
Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing Form I-129 nonimmigrant 
petitions than Form I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in 
error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. 
Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not 
preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's 
qualifications). 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that 
USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions 
on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Clara Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE , 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D .N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); 
Royal Siam v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir.2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 177 
(D.Mass.2000)) (Dkt.10); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F.Supp.2d 800, 803 
(E.D.La.l999), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
C. Evidentiary Criteria4 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Regarding the director's determination that the petitioner's grant from the 
is not an award, the petitioner points out that, according to the foundation's website, the grant has two 
criteria; recognizable artistic merit and financial need. The website also states that the foundation "was 
established in 1985 for the sole purpose of providing financial assistance to individual visual artists of 
established ability." The petitioner has not demonstrated that established ability and recognizable 
4 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
artistic merit rise to the level of excellence as required by the regulation. Moreover, the website makes 
clear that both financial need and ability are factors, not one or the other. 
The petitioner also claims that the recognized the quality of 
his work and is not a financial need-based grant. The petitioner relies on the June 7, letter from 
Executive Director of the which congratulates the 
petitioner on his receipt of the and references the quality of the 
petitioner's work among the 24 candidates for the grant. The petitioner did not, however, submit the 
actual award criteria. On his resume, the petitioner lists his affiliation with the 
under education. The petitioner submits an article from stating that 
the grant is a travel grant "to be given annually to deserving students registered at 
to underwrite one year of travel in Spain for study in the art of painting." 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor.· As such, 
academic scholarships, student awards, and financial aid awards cannot be considered nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Therefore, the 
petitioner did not establish that his grants are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence beyond 
the awarding entities to demonstrate that the field at the national or international level recognizes the 
grants as awards or prizes for excellence in the field. 
Regarding the Certificate of Award from the petitioner asserts that this award is 
international by the nature of the organization's title and the international pool of candidates. National 
and international recognition results, not from the entity that issued the prize or the award, but through 
the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. A petitioner may 
document such recognition in a variety of ways; for example, through media coverage. A national or 
international level competition may issue lesser awards that merely receive local or regional 
recognition, which do not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. Furthermore, 
unsupported conclusory letters from those in the petitioner's field are not sufficient evidence that a 
particular prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. In addition, the international pool 
of candidates is not determinative. The regulation requires that the award be nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Regarding the , on appeal the petitioner only 
states that this competition was "among 1574 artists with 221 artists chosen, and at this time I was 26 
years old." This statement does not 
address the regulatory requirements of national or international 
recognition. 
Regarding the priZe, the petitioner points to a letter from Dr. 
City of New York, and a letter from 
of the _ as evidence that he received the award. The petitioner did not, 
however, provide primary evidence that he received this award. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(2) provides: 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Submitting secondary evidence and 
affidavits. (i) General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, 
an applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as 
church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does 
not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the 
unavailability of both the. required document and relevant secondary evidence, and 
submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the 
petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary 
evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must 
overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
Where the regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as awards, the primary 
evidence of such awards would be copies of the awards themselves. An example of secondary evidence 
might be media reports of the competition results. Affidavits attesting to awards, therefore, would need 
to "overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence." The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the required evidence is unavailable or cannot be obtained, and therefore the letter is 
insufficient evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2). prize will, 
therefore, not qualify as sufficient evidence under this criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner agrees that he has not satisfied this criterion's 
requirements, and does not contest the director's findings. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his 
claims under this criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty 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 plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The director's decision put the petitioner on notice that the foreign language evidence he submitted 
under this criterion was not accompanied by translations into English that meet the regulatory 
requirements for such evidence. Further, the director cited and quoted the regulatory requirements for 
foreign language documents. However, the petitioner did not remedy this deficiency in his appellate 
filing and asserts: "Although no detail translation was submitted with the foreign article, each article 
contained information in English as to what the article represented, and the Service should not discount 
these articles, simply because a 'detailed translation' was not provided." The translations of the 
published material does not comply with the terms of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), which states: "Any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation which 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, these articles are not probative and will not be accorded any evidentiary 
weight in this proceeding. 
Regarding the articles in English, the director discussed the article titled, "Art league shows off some of 
its true colors" from the and the article from the website, 
The director determined that the article was not primarily 
about the petitioner, and that although the article was about the petitioner, the record 
lacked evidence to demonstrate that this website qualifies as a form of major media. The article from 
the . is about an art exhibit and discusses the petitioner in three sentences of 
the article. The published material itself is not about the petitioner. The regulation requires that the 
published material be "about the alien" and relate "to the alien's work in the field." It is insufficient that 
the published material mentions the petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii): see Noroozi v. Napolitano, 
905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); see also generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). 
The article in does not bear the article's uniform resource locator, or URL, normally 
displayed on printed 
website pages. The article is about the petitioner and related to his work in the 
field. It also contains the title, date, and author. Given the absence of the URL on the printout, 
however, the petitioner has not established that this version of the article appeared online. Regardless, 
the petitioner has not established that the website constitutes a major trade publication or other major 
media. The petitioner's appeal brief asserts that is a "major media outlet in 
New York." The record, however, lacks evidence that is an online version of media 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
with a national reach. For example, the Cable News Network (CNN) is nationally and internationally 
broadcast, and as a result, the CNN website is significant. The petitioner has not presented any 
evidence to establish that the content from attracts users at a level consistent with a 
major trade publication or other major media. The petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility, 
and in this instance he does not provide any evidence regarding the reputation of the website. National 
or international accessibility by itself is not a realistic indicator of a given website's reputation. Further, 
the petitioner's assertion that this is a form of major media is not evidence. 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 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The remaining English language materials are either not about the petitioner, but rather promote 
exhibits in which he participated, or appear in which a pears to be a newsletter 
for _ While the petitioner asserts that "is 
written for those in the field of art," he has not documented that the newsletter has a distribution or 
circulation consistent with a major trade publication or other major media. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, ---F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 
16, 2013). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
petitioner identifies three expert letters on appeal that he asserts demonstrate his eligibility under this 
criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Professor of 
provides the first letter in which he states that the petitioner: 
has made a distinct and powerful impact upon the contemporary practice of painting. 
His innovations have been prolific and influential, and he commands the ongoing 
attention of curators, critics and art connoisseurs around the world . 
. . . (The petitioner] reinvented origami .... The charm of the folded shapes comes forth 
strongly in his works, bringing forth a sense of existence and an expressive force much 
stronger than other collages can muster. By combining this technique with his masterful 
painting practice [the petitioner] has introduced a stunning innovation into the art world. 
His method of painting is direct and lucid, and carries the medium forward into entirely 
new areas .... [H]e [has] introduced another innovation, a method that utilized further 
folding and bending of the canvas' shape, bringing out its interior qualities. 
Dr. also discusses the petitioner's success in the sales of his artwork. While the 
petitioner's methods may be unique in the art world, Dr. has not described how the 
petitioner's work has influenced the field aside from being distinct from other artwork. Within the 
appellate statement, the petitioner states that Dr. demonstrates the petitioner's eligibility 
by stating his work "is represented in many collections" and that he "is a favorite of collectors around 
the world." However, the petitioner does not explain how being represented in collections or being a 
favorite of collectors is having a measurable impact in his field. While any art with exposure such as 
the petitioner's art can be viewed as contributing to the field, he must also demonstrate that his 
contributions are of major significance in the field. To rise to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner's work can be expected to have an influence on similar artists. Visinscaia, 
2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Executive Director of states: 
(The petitioner] is an important and substantial innovative force in the painting and 
general arts worlds. Using acrylic paints, canvases and wood frames, he explores and 
creates intensely original techniques of collage and origami, which is the Japanese 
traditional folding paper work. He has effectively demolished any stereotypical ideas 
about ways a canvas can or cannot be used, and even the way simple paint pigments can 
be used. He has developed a striking imaginative style by taking his profound 
consideration and tremendous vision. 
Mr. also discusses the petitioner's exhibitions and success at selling his artwork. Mr. 
closes stating: "[The petitioner] has claimed his place among the most elite international 
artists, and is an influential and important figure in contemporary art." However, neither Mr. 
nor the petitioner provide sufficient detail regarding his influence in the field, that would equal the level 
of influence necessary to meet this criterion's high standards of contributions of major significance. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
USers need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the 
United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.e. 1990). Mr. does not indicate the manner in which 
the petitioner's work has influenced the visual arts field. 
an artist, art teacher at and art book author, states: 
[The petitioner] has emerged as a special and original presence in the art world. With 
his innovations in painting, he is contributing importantly to art in general. His 
reputation has rapidly caught the attention of many groups of artists, curators, and 
critics, and he has become well established as an important, noteworthy artist. 
Mr. continues to describe the petitioner's unique methods of creating his original artwork 
by fusing origami and painting. He also describes the petitioner's artistic qualities, lists the 
petitioner's awards, and points out that the petitioner's artwork has been displayed in both the 
petitioner's home country as well as the United States. Yet, he does not provide specific examples 
of how the petitioner's work has substantially impacted the visual arts fi~ld, has influenced the work 
of other artists, or otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. It 
is not enough to be a talented artist with original works, and to have others attest to that unique 
talent. An individual must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
The record does not support the petitioner's assertion that the director essentially substituted his 
judgment of what constitutes a contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. As noted 
above, the expert letters do not provide detail of how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
his field. Neither the petitioner's originality, nor his accomplishments are in question under this 
criterion. The ultimate question is, how his contributions in his field have been of major significance. 
Here he has not submitted evidence to satisfy this regulatory requirement. Further, the final 
determination of whether the petitioner's evidence meets the plain language requirements of a 
regulation lies with USers. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988) 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 r&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 r&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 r&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 r&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 r&N Dec. at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th eir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th eir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they 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 Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. 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. See id. at 795; 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"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the 
writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Additionally, each letter submitted in support of the petitioner's eligibility claim is from 
a local colleague in New York and appears to have been drafted in response to the petitioner's efforts in 
attaining permanent resident status in the United States. See Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners 
in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include solo and group exhibitions at art galleries, to establish that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and by the 
role's matching duties. The petitioner also has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually 
performed the duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the 
petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in 
this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a 
whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a 
distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a 
distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
eminence, distinction, or excellence."5 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be 
referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 
(1893} Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments 
ch~imed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent 
reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner claims that his solo and group exhibitions at art galleries demonstrate his qualifying roles. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal 
the petitioner states: 
The evidence submitted showed that not only did I have solo exhibitions but also group 
exhibitions. These exhibitions were in numerous galleries in and 
Galleries with distinguished reputation [sic] and it would be obvious that my 
role in providing art for these galleries, although benefiting the exhibition of my work, 
certainly benefited the galleries as well, and without artists providing the work for such 
exhibits, there would be no galleries, and no locations for the young and the old to be 
inspired by art. 
First, the exhibition of the petitioner's work falls under the display at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). As discussed above, the petitioner meets that criterion. 
Consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) requires evidence to meet three separate criteria. While evidence may be relevant to more 
than one criterion, there is no presumption that evidence directly relevant to one criterion necessarily 
meets a separate criterion. Considering the petitioner's exhibitions under this criterion collapses this 
criterion into the display criterion. Cf Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (finding the reverse, that considering performances as displays under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) would collapse the display criterion into the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). 
To demonstrate how his exhibitions also meet this criterion, the petitioner provided two expert letters 
from individuals who are associated with art galleries that exhibited his work. The letters are from Dr. 
who served as the curator for the petitioner's solo exhibition at 
in December 2012, and Founding Director of and 
where the petitioner exhibited his work in October 2012. Notably, neither 
Dr. nor Mr. asserts that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for either 
institution. The petitioner's assertion that without artists such as him, these art galleries would not be 
able to exist is not persuasive. 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 
5 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary /distinguished, accessed on September 2, 2014, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Dec. at 165. Moreover, while art galleries depend on the work of the artists whose work they display, it 
does not follow that every artist plays a leading or critical role for every gallery that displays his work. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he performed in a leading or a critical role for 
any of the claimed organizations. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The plain language of the Tegulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top 
level of the field.6 
The petitioner claims the evidence he has provided relating to this criterion includes contracts and check 
payments showing that his works have sold between $1,000 and $15,000. The director determined that 
the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director put the 
petitioner on notice that the record did not contain any primary evidence of the sales of his works. The 
director also notified the petitioner that he did not provide evidence that allowed a comparison of the 
sales of his works with other fine artists in the petitioner's field. The regulation requires that the 
petitioner has "commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, m 
relation to others in the field." 
The record contains a contract agreement between the petitioner and the 
that the petitioner signed on September 20, 2011. This contract reflects 
that 
petitioner's agent. The petitioner also rovides tax related documents from 
will serve as the 
reflecting that the he 
earned the following amounts of employee, nonemployee and other income for each corresponding 
year: 
• $35,652 in 2010; 
• $16,211 in 2011; and 
• $13,502 in 2012. 
6 While we acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. INS, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that 
the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at 
all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation 
is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Even though the director notified the petitioner that the record did not contain primary evidence of his 
remuneration for the sale of his work, he did not provide such evidence on appeal , nor did he provide 
the salaries or remuneration of others in his field performing similar work. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that 
he has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing 
similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) (considering professional golfer' s earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers) ; see also Crimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
In the present case, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he has received a 
high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence . 
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 have risen to the very top of the 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[ir] 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. While we conclude that the evidence is 
not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or 
sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
determination? Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
7 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions offact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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.