dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrauonServices
AdministrativeAppeakomce (AAoi
20 MassachusettsAve W MS 2090
Washineton.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: 0EC2 1 2012 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petiti r
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,with afeeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Donot file anymotion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uses.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
TexasServiceCenter.TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismisseda subsequentappeal
andreaffirmedthat decisionon motion. Thematteris now beforethe AAO againon a second
motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed,the previousdecisionsof the AAO will be
affirmed,andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
Accordingto 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2),amotionto reopenmuststatethenewfactstobeprovidedand
be supportedby affidavits or other documentaryevidence. Motions for the reopeningof
immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor the samereasonsas arepetitionsfor rehearingand
motionsfor a newtrial on thebasisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INS v.Doherty,502U.S.314,
323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A partyseekingto reopenaproceedingbears
a"heavyburden."INSv.Abudu,485U.S.at 110.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ l l53(b)(1)(A), asan
alien of extraordinaryability in the arts.l Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof
extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's
achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).U.S.Citizenship
andImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)have
consistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individualsseeking
immigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2dSess.59(1990);56
Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm "extraordinaryability" refersonly to those
individualsin thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of the field of endeavor.Id.
and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermust submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
In theMay 24, 2011decisionof theAAO dismissingthepetitioner's appeal,theAAO found that
the petitioner had failed to establishthat shemeetsat leastthreeof the regulatory categoriesof
evidencepursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO determinedthat the
petitioner'sevidencehadmetthecategoryof evidenceat 8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(vii).TheAAO
specificallyandthoroughlydiscussedthe petitioner'sremainingevidenceanddeterminedthat
she failed to establisheligibility for the membershipcriterion pursuantto the regulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),thepublishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributionsof major significancecriterion pursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v),the high salarycriterion pursuantto the regulationat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and the commercial successesin the performing arts criterion
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Thus, the AAO concludedthat the
Accordingto FormI-94,ArrivakDepartureRecord,thepetitionerwaslastadmittedto theUnitedStatesonMarch
3,2007asanF-1nonimmigrantstudent.
Page3
petitionerhadfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof evidence.
Thepetitioner'ssubsequentmotionwasdismissedasuntimelyandfor notmeetingtherequirements
of amotionto reopen.
Onmotion,thepetitionerfails to offer argumentsandevidencerelatingto thegroundsunderlying
the AAO's most recentdecisiondatedJune29, 2012. The petitioner bearsthe burden of
establishingthattheAAO's dismissalof themotionto reopenwasitself in error. If thepetitioner
candemonstratethat the AAO erredby dismissingthe motion,thentherewould be groundsto
reopentheproceeding.Thepetitionerhasnotdonesoin thisproceeding.Accordingly,themotion
isdismissed.
Evenif the petitionerhadsuccessfullyestablishedthatthe AAO's prior decisionon motionwas
erroneous,whichshehasnot,theevidencesubmittedwith theinstantmotiondoesnotestablishher
eligibility. The petitionersubmitsfour lettersof supportin the Russianlanguagefrom
and . The English language
translationsaccompanyingthe precedingletterscontainvariousgrammatical,punctuation,and
spellingerrors. Pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),any documentcontaining
foreign languagesubmittedto USCIS shall be accompaniedby a full English language
translationthat the translatorhas certified as completeand accurate,and by the translators
certificationthat he or she is competentto translatefrom the foreign languageinto English.
While the English languagetranslationsof the letters included a brief certification by the
translatorstating"I translatedthe letter. . . from Russianlanguageto English,"thetranslations
werenot certified as "completeand accurate"and the translatordid not certify that shewas
"competentto translatefrom theforeignlanguageinto English"asrequiredby theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).TheAAO notesthatthe translatorspelledher namedifferentlyon each
of the four translationsas" " " " " ," and
" The multiple spellingsof the translator'sown name and the various
grammatical,punctuation, and spelling errors throughout the translationsunderminethe
competencyandcredibility of the translator. It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto resolveany
inconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjective evidence.Any attemptto explain or
reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjective
evidencepointing to wherethe truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92(BIA 1988).
Doubt cast on any aspectof the petitioner'sproof may, of course,lead to a reevaluationof the
reliability andsufficiency of the remainingevidenceoffered in supportof the visa petition. Id.
The petitionerassertsthat the four referenceletterssubmittedon motion meetthe regulatory
categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i),(iii) - (vii), (ix), and(x). For the reasons
discussedbelow,theAAO will upholdthepreviousdecisionsof thedirectorandtheAAO.
Page4
I. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thepetitionerdid not claimeligibility for this regulatorycriterionatthetimeof filing thepetition,
in responseto the director's Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), on appeal,or in her previous
motion. The petitionernow assertsfor the first time in theseproceedingsthat she meetsthis
criterion. The petitionersubmitsanAugust24, 2011letterfrom M stating:"In 2004
the work of [the petitioner]havebeenchoosen[sic] for participationat prestigiousinternational
exhibition of graphicworks 'Small Size Work' whereher work in mezzotinttechniquegot a
SecondPrize." The petitioner also submitsa November16, 2011 letter from
stating:"Theworksof [thepetitioner]morethanoncegotprizesplaces[sic] atartshows. In 1991
her paintinggot the 1-stplaceat an internationalexhibitions[sic], organizedby belarusian[sic]
Unionof Arts. In 1992sheawardedTheDiplomafor excellenceandreceivedthevaluePrize." In
addition,the petitionersubmitsa July 18,2011letter from stating:"In 1995and
1996[the petitioner's]works havebeenchoosen[sic] asthe bestfrom hundredsworks another
[sic] Siberianartistsandartistsfrom Far East.Thejudgedexhibitionshavebeenheld at Irkutsk
RegionalArt Museum.In 1996[thepetitioner's]work gotthefirst PlaceandBestAward. . . ."
Despitethedirector'sissuanceof a NOID specificallymentioningthatno evidencewassubmitted
for the regulatorycriterion at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the petitionernow submitsthe preceding
evidencein supportof the instantmotion. With regardto the aboveevidencesubmittedfor this
criterionfor the first time on motion,wherea servicecenterhasrequestedspecificevidencein a
NOID, and the petitionerfailed to comply with the request,that particularevidencewill not be
consideredon motion. As thepetitionerwasput onnoticeof adeficiencyin theevidenceandwas
givenan opportunityto respondto thatdeficiency,the AAO will not acceptevidenceofferedfor
the first time on appealor on motion. SeeMatter of Soriano,19 I&N Dec.764(BIA 1988);see
alsoMatter of Obaigbena,19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitionerseeksevidenceto be
considered,shemustsubmit thedocumentsin responseto thedirector's requestfor evidence. M.
Regardless,ratherthansubmittingprimaryevidenceof herprizesfrom 1991,1992,1995,1996,and
2004,thepetitionerinsteadsubmitslettersfrom formeracquaintancespreparedin 2011claimingthat
shereceivedtheaforementionedprizes.Goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidence
is not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of
Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14
I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). A petitionmustbefiled with anyinitial evidencerequired
by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistenceor otherunavailabilityof primary
evidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). When relying on
secondaryevidence,the petitionermustprovidedocumentaryevidencethat the primaryevidence
2On motion,thepetitionerdoesnotclairnto meetanyof theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenotdiscussedin this
decision.
Page5
is either unavailableor doesnot exist. Id. When relying on an affidavit, the petitionermust
demonstratethatbothprimaryandsecondaryevidenceareunavailable.Id. Wherea recorddoes
notexist,thepetitionermustsubmitanoriginalwrittenstatementon letterheadfromtherelevant
authorityindicatingthe reasonthe recorddoesnot exist andwhethersimilar recordsfor thetime
andplaceareavailable.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(ii).Thelettersfrom
and do not comply with the precedingregulatoryrequirements. Further, the
petitionerdid notsubmitevidenceof thenationalor internationalrecognitionof herparticularprizes.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i)specificallyrequiresthat the
petitioner'sprizesbe nationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the field of endeavorandit is her
burdento establisheveryelementof thiscriterion.In thisinstance,thereis nodocumentaryevidence
demonstratingthatthepetitioner'sprizeswererecognizedbeyondthepresentingorganizationsand
therefore commensuratewith nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for
excellencein thefield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethe title, date,and author of thematerial, and
anynecessarytranslation.
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthiscriterion,it mustbeaboutthepetitionerand,
asstatedin the regulations,be printedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor international
distribution.Somenewspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyservea particularlocality
but would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlike smalllocal
communitypapers.3
On motion,the petitionerpointsto the letterfrom who statesthat in 2008the
petitionerauthoredan article entitled"Mezzotint" in the magazineArt Council. The AAO's
May 24, 2011decisionhasalreadyaddressedthe deficienciesin this evidence.Thepetitioner's
article in Art Council constitutes didactic material written by the petitioner about artistic methods
andher own work rather than publishedmaterial aboutherself. Further,the petitioner failed to
submit documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatArt Councilqualifiesasa professionalor major
tradepublicationor someotherformof majormedia. Thus,thematerialin Art Councildoesnot
meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
3 Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbe givento the placementof the anicle. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributedonly in FairfaxCounty,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page6
Evidenceof thealien's participation, either individually or on apanel, asajudge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationissought.
The petitionerdid not claim eligibility for this regulatorycriterion at the time of filing the
petition,in responseto thedirector'sNOID, onappeal,or in herpreviousmotion. Thepetitioner
now assertsfor the first time in theseproceedingsthat shemeetsthis criterion. The petitioner
pointstotheletterfroM whostates:
In 1991[the petitioner]havebeeninvited to join our collectiveasa teacherof drawing
andpainting,alsosameyearsheformsapartof theBoad[sic], whichselectedtheworks
of theartistsfor partipation[sic] attheart showsandjudgedtheworksof artist. In 1992
[thepetitioner]wastheHeadof Boad[sic].
Despite the director's issuanceof a NOID specifically mentioning that no evidencewas
submittedfor the regulatorycriterion at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),the petitionernow submits
the precedingevidencein supportof the instantmotion. With regardto the aboveevidence
submittedfor this criterion for the first time on motion, wherea servicecenterhasrequested
specificevidencein a NOID, andthepetitionerfailed to complywith therequest,thatparticular
evidencewill notbeconsideredon motion. As thepetitionerwasput onnoticeof adeficiencyin
the evidenceand was given an opportunityto respondto that deficiency,the AAO will not
acceptevidenceofferedfor thefirst timeon appealor onmotion. SeeMatterof Soriano,19I&N
Dec.at764;seealsoMatter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at 533. If thepetitionerseeksevidence
to be considered,she must submit the documentsin responseto the director's requestfor
evidence.Id.
Regardless,ratherthan submittingprimaryevidencedocumentingher participationin 1991and
1992,thepetitionerinsteadsubmitsa letterfrom a formeracquaintancepreparedin 2011claiming
thatthepetitionerjudgedthe work of artists. As previouslydiscussed,goingon recordwithout
supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin
theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition mustbe filed with any
initial evidencerequired by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistenceor other
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). When relying on secondaryevidence,the petitioner must provide documentary
evidencethattheprimaryevidenceis eitherunavailableor doesnot exist. Id. Whenrelyingon
an affidavit, the petitionermust demonstratethat both primary and secondaryevidenceare
unavailable.Id. Wherea recorddoesnot exist,the petitionermustsubmitan original written
statementon letterheadfrom therelevantauthorityindicatingthereasontherecorddoesnotexist
andwhethersimilarrecordsfor thetime andplaceareavailable.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(ii).The
letterfrom doesnotcomplywith theprecedingregulatoryrequirements.Further,
thelimitedinformationprovidedin theletterfrom doesnotidentifythespecificworks
of artjudgedby thepetitionerandthenamesof theartistswhosework sheevaluated.Merely
submittinga letterclaimingthatthepetitionerservedon aboardwithoutspecifyingthework she
judged is insufficient to establisheligibility for this criterion. If testimonialevidencelacks
specificity,detail,or credibility, thereis a greaterneedfor thepetitionerto submitcorroborative
Page7
evidence.Matter of Y-B-,21 I&N Dec. 1136(BIA 1998). In this instance,the petitionerhas
failedto adequatelydocumentherparticipationasajudgein 1991and1992.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof major sigm'ficancein thefield.
Onmotion,thepetitionerpointsto thelettersfrom
and 4 as evidencefor this regulatorycriterion. The plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof the alien's original scientific,
scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major significancein the field."
[Emphasisadded.] Here,the evidencemustbe reviewedto seewhetherit risesto the level of
original artistic contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major
significance"is not superfluousand,thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv. EastrichMultiple
InvestorFund,L.P.,51F. 3d28,31(3'dCir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d619,626
(2"dCir. Sep15,2003).
states:
Almost 15 yearsI am teachingthe graphictechniqueat the Art InstituteMoscowState
AcademynamedafterV. Surikov,faculty of Graphic.Thecurriculumamongthe others
includesgraphictechnique:etching,lithograph,linocut, serygraphy[sic]. Thetechnique
of mezzotint not included to study. Not many artists work with mezzotint, very
complicatedlabor-intensivetechnique,thatrequireahigh levelof skills andhugepatient.
Someartistsusealternativegroundingmethodthatmoreeasy. But [thepetitioner]create
herworksin traditionalclassicaltechniqueandshehasagreatresult.
Only a few articles publishedon that subject and the article "Mezzotint" by {the
petitioner]publishedin our main professionalmagazineCouncilArt for 2008 is very
importantfor the field. In my work with studentsI using [sic] the materialsfrom this
magazineincludingthe article"Mezzotint"by [thepetitioner]. Shedescribein detail
accessiblyall techniqueprocessin stage,givean advices[sic] how avoidthecommon
mistakes,uncoversomesecretsof herskill.
commentsthatthepetitioneris skilledatutilizing thecomplicated,labor-intensive
mezzotinttechnique,but thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthat the petitionerherself
originatedthe mezzotintprintmakingmethod. Assumingthe petitioner'sskills areunique,the
classificationsoughtwasnot designedmerelyto alleviateskill shortagesin a givenfield. In fact,
that issueproperly falls underthe jurisdiction of the Departmentof Labor throughthe alien
employmentcertification process. SeeMatter of New York StateDepartmentof Transportation,
22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). F.B. Favorskyalso commentsthat the petitioner
publishedan articleentitled"Mezzotint." Theregulationscontaina separatecriterionregarding
theauthorshipof scholarlyarticles. 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).TheAAO will not presumethat
evidencerelatingtoor evenmeetingthescholarlyarticlescriterionispresumptiveevidencethatthe
Page8
petitioneralsomeetsthis criterion. Hereit shouldbe emphasizedthat the regulatorycriteriaare
separateand distinct from one another. Becauseseparatecriteria exist for authorshipof
scholarlyarticlesandoriginal contributionsof majorsignificance,USCISclearlydoesnot view
the two as being interchangeable.To hold otherwisewould rendermeaninglessthe statutory
requirementfor extensiveevidenceor theregulatoryrequirementthatapetitionermeetatleastthree
separatecriteria. Publicationsarenot sufficientevidenceunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)absent
evidencethat theywereof "major significance." Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d 1030,1036(9th
Cir. 2009)aff'd in part 596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). In 2010,theKazariancourtreaffirmedits
holdingthatthe AAO did not abuseits discretionin finding thatthe alienhadnot demonstrated
contributionsof majorsignificance.596F.3dat 1122. Thus,thereis no presumptionthatevery
publishedarticleis a contributionof majorsignificance;rather,thepetitionermustdocumentthe
actualimpactof her article. While assertsthat he hasutilized the petitioner's
"Mezzotint" article in his graphictechniquecourse,the petitionerhas failed to establishthe
impactor influenceof her articlebeyond classroomso asto establishthat her
articlewasmajorly significantto thefield at large. Thereis no documentaryevidenceshowing
thatthepetitioner'sarticlehassignificantlyimpactedthefield asawholeor otherwiseequatesto
anoriginalartisticcontributionof majorsignificancein thefield.
states:
TheRepublicanHouseof Art CreationwhereI havebeenworkedasDirectorfor about
twentyyearsin 1970-1990wastheCenterof culturallife of thebelarussian[sic] capital.
There have beenheld republicanand internationalexhibitions,the different cultural
events,rewardingthewinnersof theartexhibitions.
Theworksof [thepetitioner]morethanoncegotprizesplaces[sic] atart shows.In 1991
her painting got the 1-st place at an internationalexhibitions [sic], organizedby
belarusian[sic] Union of Arts. In 1992sheawardedThe Diploma for excellenceand
receivedthevaluePrize. In 1991[thepetitioner]havebeeninvitedtojoin our collective
asa teacherof drawingandpainting,alsosameyearsheformsa partof the Boad[sic],
whichselectedtheworksof theartistsfor partipation[sic] attheartshowsandjudgedthe
worksof artist.In 1992[thepetitioner]wastheHeadof Boad[sic].
SmaginVitaly states:
I know [thepetitioner]astalentedartistmorethan20 years.I ama memberof theUnion
of Art USSR from 1975 and Charman[sic] of Irkutsk Art Fund from 1993. [The
petitioner] beganexhibited [sic] her works from 1987 at the Gallery of Irkutsk Art
Museum- Departmentof SiberianArt - 23 Karl Marks street. ThereI mether, I liked her
mixedmediaworkscreatedfrom naturalmaterial.
In 1995and 1996 [the petitioner's] works have beenchoosen[sic] as the best from
hundredsworksanotherSiberianartistsandartistsfrom FarEast. Thejudgedexhibitions
havebeenheld at IrkutskRegionalArt Museum.In 1996[thepetitioner's]work got the
FirstPlaceandBestAward- travelling[sic] by theshipalongtheLakeBaikalvisiting
Page9
IslandOlhon andsmallbayPeschanaya.Financinghavebeenprovidedby Irkutsk Art
Fund. All of us,who know [the petitioner],who exhibitedwith her we proudandglad
thatsheexhibitedherworksin differentcountries.
Theprecedinglettersfrom and commenton thepetitioner'sprizes
and awards,but this evidencehas alreadybeenaddressedunderthe regulatorycriterion at
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). As previously discussed,the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)are separateand distinct from one another. Becauseseparatecriteria exist for
awardsandoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificance,USCISclearlydoesnot view thetwo as
beinginterchangeable.To holdotherwisewouldrendermeaninglessthestatutoryrequirementfor
extensiveevidenceor the regulatoryrequirementthat a petitionermeetat leastthreeseparate
criteria. Thelettersfrom and alsodiscussthepetitioner'sactivities
in the field (such as appointmentsand exhibitions), but they fail to specify any original
contributionsmadeby thepetitioner,let aloneoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the
field. solicitedlettersfrom colleaguesthat do not specificallyidentify contributionsor
provide specific examplesof how those contributionsinfluencedthe field are insufficient.
Kazarian at 1036.
states:
[Thepetitioner's]art showthattook placeatthegalleryMD-ART from February,2 [sic]
throughMarch2, 2009hadanincrediblesuccess.The attendanceof the exhibitionwas
great,alsoit wasa very goodcommercialsuccess- manyworksof [thepetitioner]were
sold.
At the exhibitionwerepresentedpaintingsin oil, pastel,watercolorandsculptureworks
in plaster,bronzeandterracotta.All theseworkshavebeencreatedby [thepetitioner]for
last20-25yearshercreativeactivity. It wasa personalexhibitionof [thepetitionerl,only
herworkswereondisplay,nobodyelseexhibitedattheGalleryMD-ART thattime.All
theworksmarked"Sold" in the"PriceList" belongto [thepetitioner].
discussesanexhibitionof thepetitioner'swork at the MD-ART Galleryin
2009,but he fails to specificallyidentifyanyoriginalcontributionsmadeby thepetitioneror
providespecificexamplesof how thosecontributionsinfluencedthe field at large. The AAO
notesthattheregulationscontaina separatecriterionregardingthedisplayof one'sworkatartistic
exhibitionsor showcases.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii).The AAO will not presumethatevidence
relating to or even meetingthe display criterion is presumptiveevidencethat the petitioneralso
meetsthis criterion. Again, to hold otherwisewould rendermeaninglessthe statutoryrequirement
for extensiveevidenceor the regulatoryrequirementthat a petitionermeetat leastthreeseparate
criteria. Regardless,thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthatthe artworkdisplayedby the
petitionerat the MD-ART Gallery equatesto original artistic contributionsof "major
significance"in thefield.
The opinionsof the petitioner'sreferencesare not without weight andhave beenconsidered
above. USCISmay, in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexpert
Page10
testimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988).
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan
alien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof referenceletterssupportingthe
petition is not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCIS may evaluatethe contentof those
lettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at795-796;seealsoMatterof V-
K-, 24 I&N Dec.500,n.2 (BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnot purportto
be evidenceasto "fact"). Thus,the contentof the references'statementsandhow theybecame
aware of the petitioner'sreputationare important considerations. Even when written by
independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof less
weightthanpreexisting,independentevidencethatonewould expectof an artistwhohasmade
original contributionsof major significancein the field. Without additional,specificevidence
showingthat the petitioner'swork hasbeenunusuallyinfluential or hasotherwiserisento the
level of original artistic contributionsof major significancein the field, the AAO cannot
concludethatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionalor
major tradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
The petitionerdid not claim eligibility for this regulatorycriterion at the time of filing the
petition,in responseto thedirector'sNOID, onappeal,or in herpreviousmotion. Thepetitioner
nowassertsfor thefirst timein theseproceedingsthatshemeetsthiscriterion. Thepetitioner
previously submittedevidenceshowing that she authoredtwo articles in the magazineArt
Council. As previously discussed,the petitioner failed to submit documentaryevidence
demonstratingthatArt Councilqualifiesasaprofessionalor majortradepublicationor someother
form of major media. Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield."
[Emphasisadded.] Generally,scholarlyarticlesarewritten by andfor expertsin a particular
field of study,arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferencesto sourcesusedin the articles. In this
instance,the record lacks evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner's articles were peer-
reviewed,containanyreferencesto sources,or wereotherwiseconsidered"scholarly."
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, the plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requiresthe petitioner'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticles in "professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia" [emphasisadded]in the plural. Theuseof the
plural is 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. § 204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only
requireserviceon a singlejudging panelor a singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterion
wishesto includethesingularwithintheplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that evidenceof experiencemustbe in the form of "letter(s)." Thus,the
AAO caninfer that the plural in the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning. In a different
context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe
singularor plural is usedin a regulation. SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158
(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March26, 2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL
3491005at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholdingan interpretationthat the regulatory
Page11
requirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(1)(2)
requiresa singledegreeratherthana combinationof academiccredentials).Therefore,evenif
the petitionerwereto establishthat her two articlesin Art Councilmeetthe elementsof this
regulatory criterion, which they do not, the plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requiresevidenceof the petitioner'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin more
thanonepublication.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor
showcases.
The AAO reaffirmsits appellatefinding that the petitioner'sevidencemeetsthe plain language
requirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other sigmficantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield.
Onmotion,thepetitionerpointsto theletterfrom v evidencefor this regulatory
criterion. Theletterfrom discussesanexhibitionof thepetitioner'swork atthe
MD-ART Gallery in 2009, but it doesnot specifythe petitioner'sactualremuneration. The
petitioner'smotiondoesnot includedocumentaryevidence(suchasfinancialrecordsor income
taxforms)showingherearningsfor anyspecifictime period. As previouslydiscussed,goingon
recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover,the
plain languageof the regulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ix)requiresthe petitionerto submit
evidence demonstratingshe "has commandeda high salary or other significantly high
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield." [Emphasisadded.] The petitioner
offersno basisfor comparisonshowingthatherremunerationwassignificantlyhigh in relationto
that of other artists. SeeMatter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc.Comm'r 1994)
(consideringprofessionalgolfer'searningsversusotherPGA Tour golfers);seealsoGrimsonv.
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (consideringNHL enforcer's salary versusother
NHL enforcers);Mani v. INS, 891F. Supp.440,444-45(N. D. Ill 1995)(comparingsalaryof
NHL defensiveplayerto salaryof otherNHL defensemen).Thedocumentationsubmittedbythe
petitioner fails to demonstratethat she has received a high salary or other significantly high
remunerationin relationto othersperformingsimilarwork. Accordingly,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby boxoffice
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
Onmotion,thepetitionerpointsto theletterfrom asevidencefor this regulatory
criterion. As previouslydiscussed,the letter from discussesanexhibitionof
the petitioner'swork at the MD-ART Gallery in 2009. The regulatorycriterion at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x)focuseson volumeof salesandbox office receiptsasa measureof "commercial
Page12
successesin theperformingarts." Thepetitioner'sfield, however,is in thevisualarts,not in the
performingarts. Nothing in letterindicatesthat the petitionerhasachieved
"commercialsuccessesin the performingarts." In this instance,the petitionerhas failed to
submitdocumentaryevidenceof "sales"or "receipts"showingthatshehasachievedcommercial
successesin theperformingarts. Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat shemeets
thisregulatorycriterion.
B. Summary
The petitionerhasfailed to satisfythe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof
evidence.
IL CONCLUSION
Thepetitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategoriesat
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
In visa petition proceedings,the burdenof proving eligibility for the benefit soughtremains
entirelywith the petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thatburdenhasnot
beenmet.
ORDER: The motionto reopenis dismissed,thepreviousdecisionsof thedirectorandthe
AAO areaffirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.