dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
8 3 Date: NOV 2 1 ZOOS 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 
SRobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) o the Act states, in pertinent part: F 
orkers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Alie s with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is desclbed in this subparagraph if -- 
I 
the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
thletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
cclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
documentation, 
ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
t 
xtraordinary ability, and 
the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
e United States. 
evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
requires. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. On page two, 
part six of his the petitioner stated his proposed job title as "Graphic Designer" and described the 
graphics to meet a client's specific commercial or promotional needs, such as 
May use a variety of mediums to achieve artistic or decorative effects." 
this job title and description in his decision. On appeal, counsel claims that 
Service Center in reviewing this petition: Mr. Kim is a fine artist and NOT a 
Counsel further alleges that the director "cut and pasted" the job 
definition of this occupation. The evidence submitted with the 
petition pertained largely to the petitioner's work as a visual artist. The director addressed this evidence, but 
also referred to the petitioner's own stated description of his proposed employment as a graphic designer. 
Counsel signed the Form 1-140 as having prepared the petition. We find no error in the director's reference to 
the job title and description explicitly stated in the petitioner's Form 1-140 as prepared by counsel. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief with additional contentions, new evidence concerning the petitioner's recent 
accomplishments and additional recommendation letters. The majority of the evidence submitted on appeal 
arose after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Cornrn. 1971). 
We address the record and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to 
' 
the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed below. 
(I) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
Counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his receipt of a fellowship and artist's residencies at 
three institutions: 1) a full fellowship to attend the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture 
("Skowhegan") in 2001, 2) residencies at the Blue Mountain Center in 2001 and 2003, and 3) an artist's 
residency sponsored by Brooklyn Community Access Television (BCAT) and The Rotunda Gallery. The 
evidence submitted indicates that although competitive, none of these honors meet this criterion. ' 
The record shows that the petitioner received a fellowship to attend Skowhegan when he was a graduate student. 
The submitted Skowhegan acceptance letter is dated April 2,2001 and a subsequent letter dated April 20,2001 
informs the petitioner that he has been "awarded a full $5,200 fellowship to attend Skowhegan this summer: 
$2,600 from The School of Visual Arts [SVA] and $2,600 from Skowhegan's Fellowship f d. 
helping to support the attendance of five students this year - an extraordinary cornrnitmen ." 
Executive Director of Skowhegan, explains that the school "is an intensive nine-week summer program or 
interaction. 
?W' 
emerging visual artists, providing a stimulating and rigorous environment to support artistic creation, growth and 
WF 
states that the petitioner was one of 65 artists chosen from over 1,200 applicants. The 
submitted pnn out om Skowhegan's website states that both students and working artists are eligible for 
admission, that fellowships are available for participants who demonstrate financial need and that Matching 
School Fellowships are available to students at certain schools who are accepted to Skowhegan. Several of the 
recommendation letters note the competitiveness and prestige of a Skowhegan residency and Harriet S. Barlow, 
Director of the Blue Mountain Center, describes the school as "one of the most prestigious art programs for 
emerging young artists in the nation." This evidence demonstrates that admittance to Skowhegan is highly 
competitive and prestigious, but is an honor granted to emerging - not established - visual artists. The record 
indicates that artists at the top of their field may teach or lecture at Skowhegan, but have no need to attend the 
program themselves. Indeed, the submitted copy of a card for the Skowhegan 2002 Awards Dinner shows that 
the school presents actual awards, medals and special citations to established artists at the top of their fields, 
which are distinct fi-om fellowships supporting Skowhegan students. Hence, the petitioner's Skowhegan 
fellowship does not meet this criterion. 
Similarly, the petitioner's residencies at the Blue Mountain Center do not satisfy this category. The submitted 
printout from the Center's website states: 
Blue Mountain Center is a worlung community of writers, artists, activists and musicians in Blue 
Mountain Lake, New York in the Adirondack Mountains. The Center ex [sic] provide a peaceful and 
comfortable environment in which guests are able to work, free from the distractions and demands of 
normal daily life. Established creative and non-fiction writers, and artists not requiring exceptional 
facilities are eligible applicants. Residents are chosen by an Admissions Committee accomplished [sic] 
authors and artists. The committee is particularly interested in fine work which evinces social and 
ecological concern and is aimed at a general audience. 
Ms. Barlow further describes the Center as "an artists' retreat and worlung center" and explains that "[elach 
year, a panel of nationally recognized artists reviews the portfolios of artists who apply for the one-month 
e Mountain Center. Fewer than 1 out of 10 recognized artists who apply are 
accepted a multimedia artist, states that he met the petitioner when they were both at the 
Center and that the Center is "a highly selective residency program for writers, visual artists and academics." 
The record thus shows that Center residencies are competitive, but the submitted evidence does not establish 
that they are nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes, rather than brief opportunities for artists 
to retreat from distractions and focus on their work. 
The record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's BCATRotunda Gallery residency. Even if properly 
documented, however, this residency would not satis@ this criterion. The submitted printout states that the 
residency program's goal is "to assist Brooklyn-based artists interested in exploring video andlor multimedia as 
an artistic medium by malung BCAT's state-of-the-art Media Center available to them at no cost, and providing 
training and technical assistance in video and digital production and post-production technologies." The 
printout further states that the program is only open to artists who live or work in Brooklyn. The evidence thus 
indicates that this residency is a regional program that provides training and technical assistance. The record 
contains no evidence that such a professional development program is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award or prize for excellence in the visual arts. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that he was selected for the Emerge Six artist development program 
at the Aljira Center for Contemporary Art and that he was granted alternate status for the Djerassi Resident 
Artists Program. We cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. We note 
that the record shows that Emerge Six is a career development program for emerging artists. 
The evidence demonstrates that the petitioner won competitive entrance to four artists' residency programs. The 
evidence submitted does not establish, however, that the petitioner's residencies were nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes in his field, rather than development programs for emergng artists 
or short retreats for working artists. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other rnajor media, 
relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classzjcation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains six articles that mention the petitioner's work in reviews of group exhibitions. These 
articles were published between 2002 and 2003 in The New York Times, New Haven Register, Time Out New 
York, Metroland Magazine, and MArts. Counsel claims that the petitioner's work was also covered in a 2002 
article from the Philadelphia Weekly, but the record contains no copy of this article. The petitioner submitted 
stills from a television interview with him concerning his work in an exhibition entitled "The Thinking 
Playground" at the Gallery Boda in Seoul, broadcast on KBS-1 TV in Seoul in 1998. The petitioner also 
submitted four newspaper and magazine articles purportedly about him and his work that are printed in Korean. 
These articles cannot be considered because they were submitted with incomplete and uncertified English 
translations. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(3). While five of the English articles contain favorable mentions of the 
petitioner's work, none of the reviews focus solely on the petitioner or discuss his work in depth. The most that 
any of the articles devote to the petitioner is one paragraph. Such brief and limited media coverage of the 
petitioner's work does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an additional article that was published in the New York Times on February 6, 
2005 and mentions his work in another group exhibition. We cannot consider this evidence because it arose 
after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
On appeal, counsel also claims that the petitioner's work has been "featured in several art books and 
catalogues," but the record does not support this statement. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel 
do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The only publication 
of the petitioner's work apart from the media articles discussed above is the 2002 Skowhegan School booklet 
that includes one of the petitioner's paintings. The record contains no evidence that this booklet is a 
professional, major trade publication that is widely recognized in the petitioner's field, rather than an internal 
publication distnbuted to students, patrons and other individuals associated with the Skowhegan School. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits a letter from former reviewer for the New Yorker, a 
contributor to Art News the University of Pennsylvania Graduate 
School of Fine Arts. the publications that review art exhibitions, the most 
authoritative is, without . . . [A] mention by the Times is the clearest single 
indicator that an artist's work has exceptional merit." We do not question the merit or quality of the petitioner's 
artwork. The issue here is whether or not the submitted articles reflect his sustained national or international 
acclaim as a visual artist. Although largely favorable, the brief description and interpretation of the petitioner's 
work in five published articles does not reflect sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the$eld. 
As evidence of the petitioner's eligibility under this category, counsel initially cited his recommendation letters 
and the articles discussed above under the third criterion. On appeal, counsel cites these documents as well as 
other previously submitted evidence and contends that the petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance to his field "by creating highly acclaimed artwork and developing his own unique style." The 
record does not support this claim. 
The petitioner initially submitted nine letters of recommendation from artists and art professionals who have 
worked with him. On appeal, he submits an additional eight letters. While such letters provide relevant 
information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's 
eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in 
his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence 
of the petitioner's contributions. 
Program Associate with the Media, Arts and Culture Unit of the Ford Foundation, states that he 
met t e petitioner while curating "Kid's Stuff' at the Longwood Art Gallery of the Bronx h 
Council of the Arts in New York. explains that 
[the petitioner's] work was the centerpiece of the,exhibit. His work is insightful and emotionally strong. 
His piece in the show had been re-displayed in a subsequent exhibit called 41 1 : A- in the 
Bronx River Art Center. His work received a rave review in New York Arts Magazine, one of the 
leading art journals in the States, and in Tlle New York Time-s one of the top emerging 
artists in the current artistic field, and his growing prominence is evidenced by his inclusion in many 
subsequent exhibits and their strong reviews. 
The record documents the petitionh's participation in these two exhibitions, but does not corroborate the "rave 
. reviews" of his wor -himself i; the author of the NY Arts magazine article that reviewed "Kid's 
Stuff,'' which devotes a sing e paragraph to the petitioner's work that is no longer or more substantive than those 
that discuss the work of the other artists in this group show. The recor also contains no evidence that the New 
York Times reviewed either of the exhibitions referred to b dm 
irector of the Skowhegan School, describes the petitioner as "an 
, has already made unique contributions to the contemporary art cornmuni.& in this coun explains 
that the petitioner "is highly original in his perspective. The art works he has created are unlike any other - he 
has established himself as an artist with a defined style and technique. also states that one "example 
of his artistic accomplishments" is the publication of his work in the booklet in 2002. The 
record contains an excerpt from this booklet, but no further explanation of its significance. 
Assistant Professor of Visual Arts at the State University of New York College at Old Westbury, tf a ~rms that the 
petitioner made "innovative and thought-provolung" work during his residency at Skowhegan. 
Sean Stoops, a visual artist, curator and Gallery Coordinator at Asian Arts Initiative in Philadelphia, explains 
that he worked with the petitioner during the petitioner's participation in the "Godzoolue" and "Too Cute" 
group exhibitions at the Asian Arts Initiative. Mr. Stoops states 
Joonhyun is an exceptional artist who has stood out not only in the group exhibitions hosted by my 
organization, but also amongst the top young artists in general. His originality and creativity explode 
from his works and he is able to capture the audience through his bold expressiveness. . . . He has a gift 
for creating art works that evoke one's emotions, resulting in pieces that have stunned audiences across 
the globe. Joonhyun is an artist to watch. He is certain to continue to make significant contributions to 
the international contemporary art world. 
The record documents the petitioner's participation in these two exhibitions, but contains no evidence that his 
displayed work was critically acclaimed or otherwise made a major impact on his field. 
The record also does not suppo 
h 
intimation that the petitioner enjoys international acclaim. Apart 
from the United States, the petltloner as exhibited in his native Korea. But the record documents hls 
participation in just two exhibitions in Korea in 1997 and 1998 and one interview of the petitioner broadcast on 
Korean television in 1998. The petitioner claims to have been interviewed twice on television in Korea, but the 
record contains evidence of only one interview. As mentioned above under the third criterion, the petitioner 
also submitted copies of Korean newspaper articles purportedly about him and his work, but this evidence 
cannot be considered because the articles were submitted without complete, certified English translations. See 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner's limited, documented recognition in Korea occurred at least six years 
before his petition was filed and does not demonstrate sustained acclaim. 
Managing Editor of Art Asia Pacific ex lains that she met the petitioner while writing the 
-or the exhibition "Mythical Nation.'' -tates, 'His work mainly struck me in its 
seriousness and profundity, as well as in his amazingly displayed painterly technique. In particular, his work 
Stage had a major impact on me and was the primary motivation for me to propose to curate another exhibition 
with him. . . . I have met and interviewed many artists in New York City and Kim's work ranks with those at the 
top, including both emerging as well as mid-career artists." The record contains two favorable reviews of this 
exhibition. The first, published in the New Haven Register on July 13, 2003, does not mention the petitioner's 
work in the text of the article, but features a photograph of his painting, "Stage." The second article, published 
in the New York Times on July 27, 2003, contrasts the petitioner's painting with other, light-hearted pieces in the 
show: 
Other works offer astonishingly candid reflections on place, time and memory. Joonhyun Kim, who 
was born in Korea and lives in New York paints old photographs of himself as a baby, in Korea, in the 
arms of his mother, set against backdrops imagined or invented from details hinted at in the 
photographs. The paintings are gorgeous, but also tantalizingly poignant given that, as a migrant, 
memories are often all you cany with you. Yet these memories are frequently imperfect and tinged 
with nostalgia. 
Gallery Director of the Arts Center of the Capital 
the "Wonderland" exhibition at the Center in 2003. xplains that the 
petitioner's piece 
is the most prominent compared to the other applicants' works because it offers dee insight into 
American Culture that only someone coming from the outside could perceiveds a highly 
inventive, slulled and thought provoking artist; he is attentive to detail and is thoughtful in execution. . . 
He is able to take on a variety of mediums, from paintings to installations, depending on what form 
best represents the content. The artwork by Kim currently in the gallery is seen by hundreds of people, 
and invites interaction and contemplation. . . is by far one of the most talented artists in the 
region. 
The record contains only one review of this exhibition, published in the October 16 - 22, 2003 edition of 
Metroland, which unfavorably mentions the petitioner's work: "Except for the overly maudlin, loudly weeping 
installation by Joonhyun Kim, the work is sophisticated, imaginative and - well, fun." 
Page 8 
Co-Director of Triple Candie, a non-profit contemporary art exhibition space in New York City, 
participated in a group exhibition entitled "Living Units" at Triple Candie in 2003. Mr. - - 
ffrm-s that the petitioner is "an enormously talented young artist who has demonstrated a brilliant and 
unlque approach for fine arts.'xplains that the petitioner's work, "'Sobbing,' was regularly 
rofessionals who saw the exhibition for its eye-catching originality and its lunetic sculptural 
form. . . s sculpture, which was intelligent, visually engaging, and witty, explored how popular media 
controls people's subconscious emotions." The New York Times published a short review of this show on July 
18, 2003. The review briefly describes the petitioner's work: "the flower-bedecked television room in Joohyun 
[sic] Kim's 'Sobbing' is apparently having a nervous breakdown." 
Director of the Blue Mountain Center, states 
ossesses unparalleled artistic slulls. The work that he creates is unquestionably some of the 
most groundbreaking work of the twenty-first century. His unique flare for combining strong themes 
with a variety of forms to create a sculptural masterpiece has lead [sic] to his success in many programs 
emonstrated that he is one of the few who is talented enough to make 
significant contn utions to the art world. It is rare to find the qualities that Joonhyun has in an artist: 
His passion, creativity and imagination have culminated to produce fantastic artwork that pushes 
contemporary art into a new realm. 
Assistant Professor of Art at Carnegie Mellon University, states: 
artworks particularly stand out from others in his field. He is an artist who 
incorporates innovative techniques with his classically trained expertise. The result is a fantastic artistic 
style that captivates the viewer, drawing him in to the artwork. His choice of subject matter focuses on 
the human consciousness, which is zi recurrent theme in many of his works. As such, Joonhyun Kim 
depicts memories and visions in a brilliantly unique manner, creating the illusion of past memories, 
while in fact these images are illusions. In addition, Joonhyun Kim's unique style is demonstrated 
through his artwork that integrates digitally printed 3-D diagrams into his paintings. These works are 
one of a lund; they are visually elegant while structurally complex. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits eight additional letters, five of which cannot be considered because the authors 
state that they did not meet the petitioner or become familiar with his work until after the petition was filed. The 
petitioner must establish filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), ~nfi~bak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
Director of the Bronx Council on the Arts, affirms that 
the petitioner "Kid's Stuff' at the Council's galle in 2001 and then 
discusses his more recent accomplishments made after the petition was filed. & describes the 
petitioner as "an enormously talented young artist" and concludes that "[dlespite his young age and the [sic] 
- - - 
relatively short-term presence of this country, he is accumulating a very impressive record that 
few of his peers could match." an independent curator, Project Manager at the Asia Society in New 
York and the petitioner's 
s a unique talent in painting and contemporary artmaking; he is a visionary among the young 
artists worlung today. He combines the impulse to challenge the common assumptions of artmalung - with a generous spirit to encourage and improve work of the colleagues in his community. These are 
traits that set the standard for innovative artistic practice in the current cultural climate. It is also what 
sets him apart from most others that are malung art in the U.S. 
The record documents that, at the time of filing, the petitioner had participated in 15 group exhibitions between 
1997 and 2003 in Seoul, Korea; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New Haven, Connecticut; New York state and the 
New York City metropolitan region. As discussed above and under the third criterion, five of these exhibitions 
were favorably reviewed in magazines and newspapers. The petitioner's work is mentioned favorably in four of 
these reviews. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has ever had a solo exhibition of his work or 
exhibited his work outside of the Northeastern region of the United States since his relocation to this country. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that he successfully taught two art courses at SUNY Old Westbury, 
but we cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The evidence submitted indicates that the petitioner has received limited recognition as an emerging artist with a 
distinctive style in New York City. Although his work is highly regarded by the authors of his recommendation 
letters, the record does not fully corroborate their assessments of the significance of his work. In fact, many of 
the letters describe the petitioner as a young or emerging artist with great talent, skill and promise. Only one 
letter evaluates the petitioner's work as compared to both emerging and established artists. The record indicates 
that the petitioner has never had a solo exhibition and has shown his work only in group exhibitions 
predominately in the New York City metropolitan region. The evidence submitted does not show that the 
petitioner or his work has significantly influenced other contemporary visual artists in the United States or 
abroad, or has otherwise had a major impact on his field. The record thus does not establish that, at the time of 
filing, the petitioner had made major contributions to his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner "has exhibited his art work at numerous exhibitions around the 
world, including some of the most prestigious museums and galleries in the U.S. and South Korea." The record 
contains no evidence to support the purported prestige of the venues that have exhibited the petitioner's work. 
Again, without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533 at 534; Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 at 506. 
In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that exhibition of one's work is inherent to a visual artist's profession. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in a 
substantial proportion of positions within that occupation. The record in this case documents the exhibition of 
the petitioner's work in 15 group shows between 1997 and 2003 in Seoul, Korea; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
New Haven, Connecticut; New York state and the New York City metropolitan regon. The petitioner 
submitted little or no documentation regarding the reputation, standing or significance of the venues that 
exhibited his work. The record is also devoid of any evidence that the petitioner has exhibited in critically 
acclaimed, major national or international exhibitions. Accordingly, the petitioner's exhibition record does not 
reflect the requisite sustained acclaim and he does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is an accomplished emerging visual artist who has received limited 
recognition and displayed his work in group exhibitions in Seoul and the northeast region of the United States. 
However, the record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim placing him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. He is thus ineligble for classification as an 
alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 
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. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A), with the requisite supporting evidence. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.