dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N W , Rrn 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: . DEC 1 '2 2007 
EAC 06 101 50272 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and ~ationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
ministrative Appeals Office 
- 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues'that she qualifies as an artist of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
 . 
(1) Pnority 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition m his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). 
The relevant critena will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on February 14, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as an artist. In a letter submitted in support of her petition, the petitioner states: 
I am a recognized artist in my homeland, Croatia. I was a dancer, choreographer, costume designer, 
' 
make-up art~st, art director, photographer and journalist. I studied journalism in Spllt, Croatia. I 
specialized in modern dance techniques at, "CSC" - Academy of Dance in Milan, Italy. Then I 
Page 3 
graduated at "BCM" - the famous European school of artistic make-up, also in Milan. I developed 
d~fferent art and cultural projects in Croatia. 
Seven years ago a young man asked me to shoot photos for his model-portfolio. We created about a 
dozen very unique photos. One of them changed my life, and my family's life, forever. 
* * * 
World famous "Benetton" photographer 
 suggested me to go to [New York City], 
where I could share the supernatural messages of my photo with as many people as possible. 
Fascinated by the photo, "National Museum of Catholic Art and History," here in New York, 
renewed our visas twice. 
* *,* 
For the past six years, we have been struggling to make a life in New York . . . . 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that she 
seeks to continue work in'her area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. $8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3) and (5). According to Part 3 of her 
Form 1-140 petition and other documentation submitted by the petitioner, she has been residing in the United 
States since November 1999. The record, however, contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim in the arts after her entry into the United States. Nor is there 
evidence that she has worked as dancer, choreographer, costume designer, art director, photographer, or 
journalist subsequent to 2000. While the petitioner's appellate submission includes a September 6, 2001 
memorandum from the Public Relations Department of Lancome Paris indicating that it requested her 
services as a make-up artist for a fashion event in September 2001, there is no evidence that she has worked 
as a make-up artist since that time. The preceding issues and additional deficiencies in the petitioner's 
evidence will be further addressed below. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring' the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terins of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individcal is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
-1 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
 "[Bleing 'Alfa and Omega' of the 'First Croatian Fashion Designers 
Festival' m 1994 was equivalent to an "OscarM-winning performance in the United States. The record, 
however, includes no evidence of the petitioner's receipt of this award, nor evidence that it was nationally or 
internationally recognized. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzjication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
On June 9, 2006, the director issued a notice requesting the petitioner to provide evidence for this regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner, however, failed to submit the requested documentation. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits an October 27, 2006 letter issued by the Art Directors Club, Inc. of New York stating that she is a 
member. The petitioner also submits an October 24,2006 letter from the president of Photo Club Split stating 
that she is a member of the club. The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner 
failed to submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider 
this evidence for any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the 
director. Nevertheless, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) 
showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's or an allied field. As such, the petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which ckassiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criteiion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be.printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level fiom a local publication or broadcast. Some newspapers, such as the 
New York ~imis, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant 
national.distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
- 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted a videotape of local news coverage from UPN Channel 9 in New York. The June 2003 
video clip, which features brief quotes from the petitioner and her spouse, shows a promotional event to market 
new variations of."I love New York" t-shirts and states that the petitioner's husband came up with the idea. There 
is no indication that participating in a promotional event for t-shirt sales relates to the petitioner's "work in the 
field for which classification is sought." Nor is there evidence that UPN Channel 9 in New York is a form of 
"major" media. 
The petitioner also submitted several articles discussing her in publications such as Nedjeljni Magazine, Stil, 
Jutarnji List, Slobodna Dalmacija, Nedjeljna Dalmacija, Foto, and Vecernji List. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The English 
language translations of the preceding articles were not certified by the translator, nor were they complete, as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the dates'for the majority of the preceding articles 
were not properly identified as required by this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner submits an October 25, 2006 
letter from a Consul Counselor for the Consulate General of the Republic of Croatia, New York, asserting that the 
preceding publications "are established to be major trade publications or major media in Croatia." As this 
assertion is unsupported by documentary evidence, it is insufficient to demonstrate that the preceding articles 
were pnnted in major publications in Croatia. The record includes no evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that the preceding publications qualify as "professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." Moreover, there is no evidence of material about the petitioner in major publications subsequent to 
the 1990s. As such, the petitioner has not established that her national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alieh 's authorship of scholarly articles in thejield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted two articles she authored for Jet Set magazine in which she interviewed - 
. These articles were unaccompanied by certified English language translations 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Nor is there evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that the preceding magazine qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other form of 
major media.2 Further, the plain language of ths regulatory criterion requires the petitioner's "authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field." Without proper English language translations, it cannot be concluded that the 
petitioner's articles were "scholarly" in nature. Finally, there is no evidence of scholarly articles authored by 
the petitioner in major publications subsequent to the 1990s. As such, the petitioner has not established that 
her national or international acclaim has been sustained. 
2 
 As discussed previously, the petitioner submitted an October 25, 2006 letter issued by a Consul Counselor from the 
Croatian Consulate m New York asserting that Jet Set was one of several publications "established to be major trade 
publications or major media in Croatia." Thls assertion was unsupported by documentary evidence and therefore is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the articles authored by the petitioner were printed in a major publication. 
8 
Page 6 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets ths criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her work in Croatia in the 1990s that appears to meet this criterion. For 
example, the petitioner's photographic exhibition, ''Faces,'' and art direction forthe Mr. contest, 
demonstrate a level of national acclaim in Croatia. The petitioner also submitted May 9, 2000 and November 
14, 2000 letters from, Director of Development and ~e~it~ ~irector, The National Museum 
of Catholic Art and History, New York, stating that the museum was "en a ed in the planning stages of an art 
project" with the petitioner. In the November 14, 2000 letter, states: "I am writing to urge 
that [the petitioner] be granted permission to stay in the United States in order to complete this important art 
project which is expected to be exhibited in the National Museum of Catholic. Art and History at the opening 
of the museum which is anticipated to be September 2001." The record, however, contains no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's exhibition at this museum ever came to fruition. Thus; subsequent to her arrival 
in the United States; there is no evidence that the petitioner's work has been displayed in qualifying artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that her national oi- international 
acclaim as an artist has been sustained. 
Evidence that the alien has per$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that she performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The petitioner, however, has submitted 
no evidence showing that the organizations for which she has worked have distinguished reputations or that 
she was responsible for their success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role" and indicative of sustained national or International acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The plain language of this regulatory cntenon requires evidence' of commercial success in the form of "sales" or 
"receipts"; simply submithng evidence indicating that the petihoner has worked on vanous produchons cannot 
meet the plain language of this cntenon. The record includes no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" 
showing that the petitioner achieved commercial success in the performing arts in a matlner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclalm. As such, the petitloner has not establ~shed that she meets this 
criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recpgnized award, 
or that -she meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Further, as required by section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner must demonstrate that 
her national or international acclalm has been sustained. As previously discussed, the petitioner has been 
residing in the United States since November 1999. 
 The record, however, includes no evidence of 
Page 7 
achievements or recognition showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim in the 
-, 
' 
arts in the six years immediately preceding the filing date of the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests to "be granted a personal interview . . . to present orignal documentation and 
hundreds of negatives of [her] photos." The presentation of orignal documents and negatives, of the petitioner's 
photographs is unnecessary- as CIS has not questioned the credibility of her evidence. The regulations provide 
that the requesting party must adequately explain in writing why oral argument'is necessary. CIS has the sole 
authority to,grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique 
factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. $-103.3(b). In this 
instance, the petitioner has not identified unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. Moreover, the written 
record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in thismatter. consequently, the iequest for oral 
. . 
argument is denied. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
' 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field: The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligbiliq 
 to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner will continue work in her 
areas of expertise in the United States. Aside from being "engaged in the planning stages of an art project" 
with the ,National Museum of Catholic Art and History more than five years prior to the petition's filing date 
and being requested to work as a make-up artist at a Lancome Paris fashion event in September 2001, there is 
no further evidence' that the petitioner.has continued to work in her areas of expertise for the last four years. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States 
to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), 
evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement &om the beneficiary detailing plans , . 
on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." The petitioner submitted 'a 
November 10, 2003 letter stating: "My first book is almost finished. I bum for its publishing in my new 
home. My 'THE LITTLE RED SHOES,' a short kids movie, is waiting for sunny shooting days of this ; 
winter. My FACE PAINTING HANDBOOK FOR KIDS will be presented next year." This letter lacks 
sufficient details of these projects and does not represent "clear evidenceW.of the 
 work intentions 
in the United States. Further, we cannot ignore that the petitioner wrote the November 10, 2003 letter more ' 
than 27 months 
 to the filing of this petition. As of the filing date of her appeal on October 3 1,2006, the 
record contains no evidence that the petitioner has published either of the preceding books or released the 
' 
children's movie. Nor is there documentary evidence of ongoing work or progress related to these projects. 
For example, the record includes no evidence indicating that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with 
a publishing house or that she has acquired the necessary ,resources to produce a children's movie. As such, 
there is no clear evidence that the petitioner will continue work in her areas of expertise in the United States. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 
- 
Page 8 
557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
. in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."). See also, Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., 
recognized by the 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.