dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac} 
PuBLIC COPY 
DATE: JUL 0 1 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(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. 
I f 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. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cO@.·' -
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uliCis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(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. The director also questioned whether 
the petitioner sought to continue working in his area of expertise. 
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)(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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a statement and resubmits previously submitted evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, while the record establishes the petitioner'S current employment, the AAO concurs 
with the director that the petitioner has not established his sustained national or international acclaim. 
The AAO will address below counsel's assertions regarding the director's approach to evaluating the 
evidence. 
On the petition, the petitioner responded "no" to Part 4, question 6 which asks whether any immigrant 
visa petition has ever been filed by or on behalf of the petitioner. The petition also advises that if the 
answer is "yes," the petitioner must provide the case number, office location, date of decision and 
disposition of the decision on a separate sheet of paper. The petitioner did not submit an attachment 
with this information. Instead, counsel included the ambiguous statement in his cover letter: "The 
initial request was denied as a result of lack of evidence." Counsel did not include a case number, 
office location or date of decision. 
While there is no prohibition regarding the number of extraordinary ability petitions an alien may 
choose to file, neither the alien nor his attorney of record is permitted to deliberately conceal the 
existence of prior filings in response to the specific questions at Part 4 of an 1-140 petition, or to decline 
to provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with specific requested information 
regarding all prior filings. The Form 1-140 petition "shall be executed and filed in accordance with the 
instructions on the form." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). As counsel has represented the petitioner in his prior 
Form 1-140 filing, it is unclear why counsel signed the instant petition to indicate that the information 
on the form was "based on all information of which I have knowledge." The existence of prior 
Page 3 
petitions and the information contained within those petitions may be material to a new adjudication. 
See. e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15) (withdrawal or denial of a petition due to abandonment shall not itself 
affect a new proceeding; however, the facts and circumstances surrounding the prior petition shall 
otherwise be material to the new petition). The AAO notes that willfully misleading, misinforming or 
deceiving any person concerning any material and relevant matter relating to a case may be a basis for 
disciplinary sanctions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(c). In addition, such actions may constitute 
frivolous behavior. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1020). The AAO strongly discourages this behavior. 
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. 
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 IOlst 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.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifYing evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
Page 4 
(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 ajudge 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. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 FJd 1115 (9th 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.l With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
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. § 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 1 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. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
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. Despite the fact that the director cited Kazarian, on 
appeal, counsel asserts that there is "no authority" for applying the second step, the final merits 
determination. Instead, counsel asserts that the regulations mandate that an alien who submits evidence 
that falls under three of the criteria has met his burden. 
The final merits discussion in the Kazarian majority opmlOn is a necessary corollary to the 
majority's discussion of how uscrs should consider evidence under the regulatory criteria. More 
specifically, the court's conclusion that USCIS cannot raise certain concerns when conducting the 
"antecedent procedural" step of counting the evidence is predicated on the understanding that uscrs 
can do so at a later stage. Id. at 1121. To apply only half of the court's procedure would effectively 
negate our ability to consider the quality of the evidence at any stage. Such an outcome is untenable 
and would undermine the statutory standard of national or international acclaim. Notably, the 
Kazarian court cited Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) for the proposition that 
the classification is extremely restrictive. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1120. 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO considers the final merits determination step discussed in 
Kazarian not only persuasive but necessary to understanding the court's decision as a whole. 
Significantly, a recent federal court decision has acknowledged that the Kazarian court described a 
two-step procedure. Rija/ v. USc/S, 2011 WL 22067 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2011). That court stated: 
Page 6 
Although USCIS erred in some of its conclusions as to _ showing on the 
threshold evidentiary criteria, it is apparent that it made those errors with an eye 
toward the ultimate merits determination. In each instance, USCIS sought evidence 
that demonstrated sustained acclaim. There is no threshold requirement that the 
evidence demonstrate that acclaim, but ultimately, USCIS must determine whether 
the evidence demonstrates "sustained national or international acclaim." 
Id at *6. While only a district court decision, the AAO finds persuasive that a federal court looking at 
this issue after Kazarian concurs with the AAO's conclusion that the two-step process is a fundamental 
holding of Kazarian. 
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 8 C.F.R. § 103J(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary CriteritJ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a 2003 letter from __ 
Committee, advising the petitioner that he was s~ix tinalists 
Competition. The petitioner also submitted a second place trophy for the 2003 from 
~ name does not appear on the trophy. An unsigI!ed letter from 
~ and advises that the petItIOner 
received a second in a national film and competition that recognizes 
excellence in the work An unsigned letter has no petitioner 
also submitted materials from website stating that limited to 
college students. 
Even assuming that the petitioner won a 2003 
award, limited to college students, is nationally 
photography. 
the record contains no evidence that this 
or internationally recognized within the field of 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
an 
received the following awards: (1) the 
_ for best photo essay, best slide purllUllU 
awards are not in the record. Moreover, 
nationally or internationally recognized. 
Universiltv (NYU), asserts that the petitioner 
in 1998 and (2) awards at the _ 
mi](ed media category in 1998. These 
does not assert that these prizes are 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
is not notarized and does not constitute an affidavit. Moreover, he does not 
claim first hand knowledge of these awards. Regardless, affidavits from individuals with direct 
personal knowledge are only permissible in lieu of primary evidence where the petitioner demonstrates 
that both primary and secondary evidence are nonexistent or unavailable. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(2). The 
record contains no evidence that the above 1998 awards or secondary evidence of those awards such as 
media coverage of the selections, are either nonexistent or unavailable. 
In sununary, the petitioner has not documented his receipt of any awards and has not demonstrated that 
any of the awards he claims to have won are nationally or internationally recognized. Thus, the 
petitioner has not submitted qUalifYing evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 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 petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member of the 
(SPE). The petitioner did not submit evidence, however, that SPE requm::soutStanwtga.CIiilevemeIrts 
its members. Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires 
evidence of membership in qualifYing associations in the plural, consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When 
a regulatory criterion wishes to inc! ude the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular 
or plural is used in a regulation. 3 
3 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Cherlofj, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Page 8 
As the petitioner has documented only a single membership and the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that SPE requires outstanding achievements of its members, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published materials 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. 
asserts that _ 
20 I 0 and broadcast 
for 
- Indonesian Service, confirms that aired "a special features story on your exhibition for 
many of our national and private TV and Radio affiliates in Indonesia" during primetime. The 
petitioner submitted a DVD of the broadcast, a short piece that is exclusively about the petitioner and 
his exhibition. 
The petitioner submitted ai •• and Events press release in the the 
petitioner's exhibition at the The petitioner characterizing 
the paper as "the definitive local voice in Washington, D.C." Counsel asserts, however, that the paper 
is a major media publication because it appears in print and on the Internet. 
In today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their 
stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement 
meaningless. International accessibility by itself is not a realistic indicator of whether a given 
publication is "major media." The petitioner has not demonstrated that the print distribution of a 
publication fails to reflect the overall interest in the publication even if also accessible on the 
Internet. The AAO will not presume that the mere Internet presence of articles from a local 
newspaper will notably increase the readership of that paper beyond the locality the paper serves. 
Regardless, the article is not about the I'~L"'~'H~' relating to his work. Rather, it is a promotional 
article about an exhibit at the and only mentions the petitioner as one of five 
photographers displaying their 
Thus, the only qualifYing media coverage is the single. broadcast. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published materials in qualif'ying publications or other 
major media in the plural. As the petitioner has submitted only a single instance of qUalifYing 
coverage, he has not submitted qualif'ying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 
at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 alliedjield of specification for which classification is sought. 
Page 9 
asserts that~ ~at the for the 
_ •• 1 and the Washington ~ w~e petitioner "reviewed the work for_ 
• a social documentary Photographer." does not affirm any personal knowledge 
of this judging experience and the record contains no evidence from the_ confirming this 
appointment. 
l"'L1LIU'11"l submitted a January 24,2010 letter 
confirming the time slot 
in Philadelphia. 
the petitioner served as a judge for the 
the 2010 
reviewing student portfolios at the 2010 
for CINE, asserts that 
~has adequately documented his participation as a judge for SPE and the CINE _ 
_ As such, the petitioner has submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
of the University of the District of Columbia, asserts that the petitioner, a 
professor at that university since 2008, is an instructor of high quality. Effectiveness and dedication as 
a professor, while commendable, are not contributions of major significance to the field of 
photography. notes that the petitioner has exhibited his work and "taken on significant 
commercial petitioner's exhibits will be discussed below under the relevant criterion, set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). They are not, by themselves, contributions of major significance to 
the field of photography. Simply demonstrating an ability to work in the field through the retention of 
significant commercial clients is not a contribution of major significance to the field of photography. 
the sole _ for the 2010 '_exhibition in Vermont, asserts that exhibition 
featured 75 of the more than 1,000 photographs submitted. She further explains that she selected the 
petitioner's entry because it was the only one to address the theme with a sequence offour photographs 
with a cohesive story progression of memory and loss. As stated above, the petitioner's exhibitions are 
directly relevant to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Not every exhibition is a 
contribution of major significance. does not explain how the petitioner's use of four 
photographs documenting a cohesive story has influenced the field of photography as a whole. 
discusses the petitioner's contributions to the _of 
baccalaureate-level photographic concentration then 1.11', ~L"i>'" 
the petitioner's donations of art to an auction on behalf of the These 
statements, however, do not address how the petitioner has influenced the field of photography as a 
whole at the level of a contribution of major significance. 
Page 10 
states that his letter constitutes "an advisory expert opinion and peer review" of the 
petitioner. At the end of his letter, he states that there are "no grounds for me to disbelieve the 
authenticity and accuracy of the credentials presented by" the petitioner. does not 
indicate that he had ever heard of the petitioner prior to being requested to provide a reference letter. 
_"""" " generally that the petitioner is "among the small percentage of individuals 
who have risen to the top of their field, and can be considered of extraordinary ability." Merely 
repeating the langu~:;.2L!!!:;.~!~l:;.2r regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.
4 
More specifically, ___ discusses the petitioner's work for and 
_ Contributing to the syllabus and course instruction at two not a contribution of 
major significance to the field of photography as a whole. does not suggest that 
other universities nationwide have adopted the petitioner's syllabus. as 
discusses other criteria such as judging the work of others and exhibitions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii), this decision will discuss his assertions under those criteria. As there 
are separate criteria for those accomplishments, the AAO will not presume they rise to the level of 
contributions of major significance to the field without a persuasive explanation as to how they have 
demonstrably influenced the field. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
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.5 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, 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, as this decision has done above, 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 
4 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (ED.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (SD.N.Y.). Similarly, uscrs need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Allorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, IS 
(D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
5 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) afJ'd in part 596 F.3d IllS (9th Cir. 2010). In 
2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to 
[the alien's] contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page II 
"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. Id. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim without specifically 
identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 6 The petitioner also failed to submit 
sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could 
have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner displayed his photographs at the following exhibitions: 
I. Thejuried in Middlebury, Vermont in 2010; 
2. The 2009 Art for Life auction at the of Washington in 
Washington, D.C. benefitting the ••••••••• to which the 
petitioner donated his work; 
3. in Washington, D.C. where the petitioner is a participating 
_, in June, August, October and December 2009 and February 2010. 
4. The 
examples she gives, however, are from 2006. 
can result in commissions in 2006. 
at 
Film and Photography Festival asserts that the 
by the The 
not 2007 
In addition to the evidence of the above exhibits, the petitioner submitted his 2008 photo essay of 
fashion in another photo essay of hot spots in Washington D.C. for the 
January Issue DC. The petitioner is also credited as the photographer for other 
stories in various issues of that magazine. According to a Reuters article the petitioner submitted, 
6 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, ajj'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 
at *5. Similarly, users need not accept primarily conc1usory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at IS. 
is the largest publisher of city magazines. The article does not suggest that each of 
these city magazines has a significant distributio~ity. The petitioner is also credited with 
a photograph in the February 2009 edition of _ In addition, the petitioner submitted 
photographs in but no photographer credits are apparent. Nevertheless, 
_for The confirms that the petitioner is a contributor to the magazine. The petitioner is 
also the credited for Family Recipes Around the World, published by 
petitioner is The peltiti'Jll(!r 
a CUf)calce photograph in a slide show titled on ABC 
News' website. Magazines are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
~so received production credit for one 
~ Annual Report. 
the annual report is "IFC's flagship prestige is reflected in 
the Annual Report, and conveyed with photography and editorial content of the highest quality." 
Regardless, an annual report is not an artistic exhibition or showcase. 
cOilfirms that the petitioner EJ.te~~b.e~hl~·n~d. 
for the 2008 film • 
Inc., thanks 
photographing the rising in Coney Island. 
confirms that she used the photographs for public relations, marketing and historical documentation. 
The petitioner is also the credited for the _ website and an lffisigned letter thanks 
him for taicing photographs for catering website. Promotional posters and historical 
documentation are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
asserts that she asked 
pe"tltl'Ont!r to a documentary she co-produced and co-
directed. She further asserts that the film was screened on over 70 PBS affiliates and accepted at over 
20 film festivals. The petitioner submitted the credits and some materials purporting to list the 
screenings of the documentary but the source of this information is not apparent. Finally, she asserts 
that the petitioner's short film, was "recognized locally in several film festivals" 
including the and the Awards. A documentary is not 
an artistic exhibition or showcase. 
In a letter dated April 30, 2010, in Thailand invited the 
petitioner to exhibit his work in in 2011 but the record contains no evidence that he had 
done so as of the date of filing this petition in July 2010. Similarly, the petitioner was invited to exhibit 
his work in Vermont at the in from August 10 through September 4, 2010, also 
after the date of filing. The AAO will not consider evidence of exhibitions that postdate the filing of 
the petition, the date as of which the petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility. See 8 C.F .R. § § 
103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'!. Comrn'r. 1971). 
Page 13 
In summary, the magazines, publicity material and documentary are not artistiC exhibitions or 
showcases. It is also not clear that an auction is an artistic showcase or exhibition. Nevertheless, the 
exhibitions in Vermont, at and for the Festival are 
qualifYing exhibitions. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
the beneficiary from a pool of 30 applicants 
pre:serltation and ability to "teach across the border, in all the fields 
assigned." lists the courses the petitioner has taught and asserts that he "instilled 
many of the we, as a department, demand from our professors." also 
discusses the success of the petitioner's students and concludes that the petitioner's position "was 
imperative for the growth of the photography concentration." Specifically, she explains: 
Our school was lacking a strong Commercial Photography Program when [the 
petitioner 1 was entrusted with revamping the syllabus. He actually did more than that, 
he was able to elevate the program to a level of competitiveness with other national 
schools, and his students were able to produce portfolios at the most professional levels. 
In a July 20, 2009 
, thanks the petitioner for teaching at the university and indicates that his students 
have ranked him with a score 4.25 out of 5. 
that the petitioner has worked "in a critical and essential capacity for both 
clear that he reaches 
this conclusion based on the letter from does not claim any 
first-hand knowledge of this role and, in not had ever heard of the petitioner prior 
to being requested to provide a reference letter based on his review of the petitioner's credentials. 
asserts was an III spnng was 
with the student response and work produced, resulting in the offer of a tenure-track position. 
confirms that the petitioner has stimulated students and provided a creative environment. 
does not explain how the petitioner'S role fits in the overall hierarchy of the university or how the 
petitioner has contributed to the university above and beyond the normal duties of a professor such that 
his role may be distinguished as "critical." 
Page 14 
The petitioner does not hold a chair or dean posItIOn, as shown by an organizational chart 
demonstrating how those positions fit within the overall hierarchy of the universities where he is 
,working. Thus, the petitioner has not documented a leading role for either or 
Every position at a university is necessary for the operation of the university in some way or the 
university would not fill the position. According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), mere employment with a distinguished employer is insufficient. Rather, the role 
must be leading or critical. If every position necessary for the operation of the employer were 
considered "critical," that term would be meaningless. Instead, the word "critical" requires that the 
petitioner have provided a service that was demonstrably important to the increased success and 
distinguished reputation of the employer as a whole. 
_ does not suggest that the petitioner performed any service beyond those of what. expects 
of any competent tenure-track _ Thus, the record does not reflect that the petitioner performed 
a critical role for_ 
As stated asserts that the "instilled" the initiatives expected of 
university faculty and elevated the competitiveness of commercial photography 
program. The a critical role for the photography division, which falls under 
the _ and which falls under a department. That role, 
however, does not rise to the level of a critical role as a whole. The petitioner 
did not submit evidence that the commercial photography program at individually 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. For example, the petitioner did not or trade media 
rankings of the top commercial photography programs in the United States. The record also lacks 
general or trade media articles crediting the petitioner with the distinguished reputation of that program. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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 
Page 15 
the[irJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(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." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 FJd at 1119-20. 
As discussed above, the petitioner did not document the 1998 awaleIS 
and the record contains no evidence of their prestige. Even if we assumed that the petitioner won a 
2003 ~ ward, awards where the pool of competitors is limited to students do not compare the 
competitors with the most experienced and renowned members of the field. Thus, they are not 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim or status as one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
As discussed above, the record contains no evidence that SPE has restnctIve membership 
requirements. The record lacks any other evidence to suggest that SPE membership is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The article in the appears in a local publication to promote an exhibition of 
at least five appears the "Arts & Events" section. Such local and promotional 
coverage is not consistent with national or international acclaim the same way as journalistic 
coverage in national publications. 
The _ broadcast focused on the petitioner's solo exhibition. It included statements from the 
petitioner, his students, a colleague at _ and the exhibit organizer. The petitioner, however, did 
not provide a certified translation of the foreign language portions of the broadcast. While_ 
filmed the story, the record does not establish the nature of the Indonesian program that included this 
featured story in its broadcast. This evidence, while notable, is not indicative of national acclaim or 
status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
While the petitioner submits evidence that he has judged the work of others pursuant to 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the nature of the judging experience is a relevant consideration in the final merits 
detennination as to whether the evidence is indicative of national or international acclaim. See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. As stated above, the petitioner reviewed student portfolios for SPE. 
SPE's newsletter lists 86 reviewers total. The petitioner purchased a membership in SPE and paid a 
registration fee to attend the conference. Nothing in the record suggests that this participation is 
indicative of national or international acclaim rather than volunteer services commensurate with an 
experienced member of the field. 
__ explains that CINE selects the competition participants through semiannual competitions 
involving "hundreds of volunteer media and content specialists who judge nearly 1,000 entries yearly in 
several moving-image genres for professional, independent and student filmmakers." During the 
judging phase, juries of film, video, television or content professionals evaluate the approximately 500 
films selected using CINE's judging paperwork. Those films that juries recommend through two stages 
Page 16 
<OAI-'WU" that CINE recruits jury chairs from around the United States and 
two colleagues. According to 
in Annapolis, Maryland, recruited the petitioner to serve on "a few of her 
juries." In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted an unsigned letter 
purportedly from _ attesting to the prestige of CINE judges. As the letter is unsigned, it has 
no evidentiary value. 
A national organization, CINE selects the jury chairs. The jury chairs then select their colleagues. 
Thus, it is apparent that selection as a jury chair is more indicative of national recognition than selection 
as a member of the panel by the jury chair. Recruitment operates in Annapolis, is 
not indicative of the petitioner's recognition outside of the Mid-Atlantic region where he works. 
In light of the above, the petitioner'S participation as a judge is not indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim or status as one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of photography. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has displayed his work at artistic exhibitions and showcases. 
Exhibition, however, is an inherent part of working as a visual artist. The simple act of displaying 
one's work is only indicative of an ability to work in the field rather than national or international 
acclaim. With the exception of a single exhibition in Vermont, the petitioner's exhibitions as of the 
date of filing had all been local to the Washington, D.C. area. The petitioner did not document that the 
Vermont exhibition is a nationally recognized exhibition. A single exhibition outside the petitioner's 
local area is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim or status as one of the 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of photography. 
The petitioner has secured freelance employment as a commercial photographer, providing 
photographs, photo essays and promotional material for magazines and other clients. An ability to 
secure employment is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Even 
assuming some of the clients enjoy a distinguished reputation, the petitioner did not demonstrate that 
he played a leading or critical role for the organizations or establishments that have hired him. 
The petitioner has documented that he has been employed as a _ An ability to secure 
employment as a however, is evidence of competence as an instructor. Not every 
photography_ is nationally or internationally acclaimed or is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of photography. Notably, demonstrating an offer of a 
tenure track position does not relieve a petitioning university from submitting documentation of 
international recognition when seeking to classifY the prospective 5 as an outstanding 
professor pursuant to section 203(b)(l)( B) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i), (iii). Similarly, the 
AAO would not presume that every tenure-track professor enjoys national acclaim. 
Finally, in his initial brief, counsel asserted that what was "more telling" than 
above "is the testimony of the experts." Counsel then references the letter of 
--Page 17 
noting his conclusion that the petitioner "is among the small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the top of their field, and can be considered of extraordinary ability in the field of 
Photography." As stated above, merely repeating the language of the does not 
satisfy the peti tioner' s burden of proof." As also discussed above, does not 
appear to have ever heard of the petitioner prior to the request to evaluate his credentials in support of the petition. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
photographer 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 indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a photographer and a progression of his career, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aif'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5.