dismissed EB-1A Case: Caricaturist

(b)(6)
DATEMAY 2 1 2013 Office: NEBRASKA 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
))JOVMcNJ 
(/Ron Rosenberg 
{"" Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
------------------------
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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, a caricaturist, seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her 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, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific 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 
brief. For the reasons discussed below, upon review of the entire record, 
the AAO upholds the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
The AAO notes that on January 23, 2013 in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information. In 
response to the notice, the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to overcome the finding. 
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, 
(b)(6)
Page3 
--- --- · · ··-·- ··--. -- ---- - ······--· ... . -- ·· ···- · ····-·······--·- ~~------· -·-- -----·····-·· · . 
(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 hnmigration 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 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.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, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 F.3d 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.1 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 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "fmal merits determination." /d. 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)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence in his denial and found that the petitioner did not meet 
this criterion. The petitioner initially submitted evidence of three awards, but counsel only addresses 
one on appeal. Since counsel does not contest the director's findings or offer additional arguments 
regarding the other awards, the petitioner has abandoned any claims regarding the other awards. 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that, re!!ardin!! the ' 
in China," letters from ' noted the prestigious quality of this 
award, and ... the Director of Public Relation[s], (Iran) personally 
congratulated the petitioner on winning the award." Although counsel asserts that "[t]he Director 
discounted" the award "because he claimed that there was not 'proper documentation regarding the 
issuance of the award,[']" the director also stated in the denial that "the petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence regarding who was eligible and what judging criteria were used in selecting the ' 
e :record contains a conv of a certificate from the 
1 which contains the petitioner's name, a caricature and the words 
"China, 2005". The supporting information in the record, though purported to be about the 
festival, actuallv refers to the Furthermore, the information 
regarding the provides conflicting information regarding the 
dates and location of the festival. One article from an unknown internet website states that "[t]he 
took place October 3-6 in Beijing China." A second article 
from what appears to be website states that "[t]he 
will be held in Zhengzhou, capital of central China's Henan Province, from October 
The letter from the Director of Public Relationf s 1 at the 
to the award of a 
congratulatory in nature. 
" 
refers 
and is simply 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
PageS 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect ofthe petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. /d. at 591. 
The letter from of the states that the 
petitioner "has won some of the most prestigious awards in her art, including the at the 
The letter from Editorial Cartoonist at 
states that the petitioner "has won some of the most prestigious awards in her art, 
including the in the _ 
in China in 2005." 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'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of 
"prizes or awards" in the plural, which 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 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 include 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 US CIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used 
in a regulation? Therefore, even if USCIS found the above referenced award to be a lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prize, which it does not, the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence 
of receipt of more than one nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated 
with her awards and establish that she meets every element of this criterion. In light of the above, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifying. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
3 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 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.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
(b)(6)
---- -- --- - - - - - - - ---- -- -- ----------- - -~----~-~--~·~~~-----~-~~~-
Page 6 
criterion or offer additional arguments. This issue is therefore considered to be abandoned. Sepulveda 
v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1228 n. 2, Hristov v. Roark, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (plaintiffs claims 
were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
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. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the AAO affirms that finding. 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the AAO affirms that finding. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the evidence was qualifying. While the record contains a number of letters praising the 
petitioner's work, the letters fail to put this evidence in the necessary context to reach a conclusion 
that she has made original contributions of major significance. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the previously mentioned letters from 
are evidence of the petitioner's "extraordinary ability" and of "the original and unique nature of the 
petitioner's art." The letters praise the petitioner for her work, but do not establish that the she has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. These letters affirm the originality of 
her work, but not its impact on the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major 
significance in 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." !d. 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. Kazarian 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).4 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. 
!d. 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 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 165. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General 
ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and the AAO affirms that finding. 
B. Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has 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. A final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence follows. 
C. 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 
the[ir] 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 F.3d at 1119-20. 
4 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" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory 
language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
The classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the 
"intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Upon review of the entire record, the petitioner has failed to establish that she is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the top of her field or that the petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim, as required by 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). 
Regarding the awards criterion, which the petitioner did not meet, the record does not contain 
evidence 
of a single award since 2005. The record also lacks evidence that any of the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence. The submitted evidence was not demonstrative of sustained 
national or international acclaim and was not extensive. 
Regarding the published material criterion, not all of the published material meets the requirements set 
forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). While the petitioner submitted independent circulation information 
regarding a few of the sources, not all of the publications qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Specifically, the record is not supported by multiple articles in 
national publications and there is no evidence that major newspapers have referenced the petitioner 
as being at the top of her field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 955-55 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1994). 
The evidence relating to judging is limited to one event in 2002 and therefore is not extensive 
documentation of extraordinary ability. The petitioner was chosen to be a judge by the editor of the 
magazine the petitioner was employed by and, thus, is not indicative of any recognition beyond the 
magazine where she worked. The petitioner's participation as a judge nine years prior to the filing of the 
petition is also not demonstrative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(vii), although USCIS finds that the 
petitioner meets the plain language of the display criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), it is expected that an artist would display her at exhibitions and showcases. 
However, the record contains no evidence to show, for instance, that the petitioner's exhibitions 
garnered any attention in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting that the exhibitions 
brought any critical acclaim or drew record crowds. The submitted evidence fails to demonstrate a 
level of distinction that sets the petitioner's artistic displays apart from those of most others in her 
field. An artist does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim by arranging for her 
work to be displayed or by entering artistic competitions. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that her works have been featured along side those of artists who enjoy national or 
international reputations. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated her frequent participation in 
(b)(6)
---- ·----· ····-······---······· 
Page 9 
shows or exhibitions at major venues devoted to the display of her work alone. Moreover, the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner does not indicate that participation in her exhibitions was a privilege 
extended to only top national or international artists. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. In Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. lll. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
(T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. lll. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
The court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. Likewise, it does not follow that the petitioner, who has not offered any evidence that 
distinguishes her from other caricaturists, should necessarily qualify for approval of an extraordinary 
ability employment-based visa petition. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
The conclusion reached by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the 
evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their respective fields, rather than for 
individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. In this case, the petitioner has 
not established that her achievements at the time of filing the petition were commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim, or that she was among that small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone, but by its quality. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citingMatter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77,80 (Comm'r 1989). 
D. Continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability 
Beyond the decision of the director, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in her area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b )(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
(b)(6)
.. - - - ---- -- ---- - - ---- --- --- -------------- --- ---~~- -~~-~~-
Page 10 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by 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 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The record contains a statement from the petitioner that she is "willing to have exhibitions of my 
artwork, ... willing to sell some of my original work, ... willing to publish a book, ... willing to attend 
the[] annual convention [of the International Society of Caricature Artists], ... [and] planning to 
publish my work in magazines." The petitioner submitted no contracts, offers of employment or any 
other detailed and specific information regarding future plans with any publisher, magazine or 
gallery. 
Although the petitioner did submit a letter from Art Director of in 
Laurel, Maryland, the letter states that the gallery will offer the petitioner employment "to teach on a 
weekly basis" once "she is [employment] authorized." The petitioner lives in Los Angeles, California and 
does not mention this offer, nor an intent to move to Maryland, in her statement. Furthermore, in Part 5 
of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner listed her occupation as "Artist­
Caricaturist" and listed the same as her job title in Part 6. Thus, the record reflects that the petitioner is 
seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an artist/caricaturist rather than as a teacher. 
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. §§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While an artist/caricaturist and a teacher share knowledge of the genre, the 
two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, instruction and drawing are not the same area of 
expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 
(N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" 
as working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not 
necessarily in any profession 
in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as 
a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions 
or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
ld. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. While the AAO acknowledges the 
possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as artist/caricaturist and 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
teacher, the petitioner, however, must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the 
United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
In further contrast to the petitioner's claims regarding her intended future work in the United States as a 
caricaturist, the record reflects that the petitioner was a dentist in Iran and has listed no employment since 
coming to the United States. Rather, the petitioner is currently enrolled in a preceptorship program for 
Advanced/Graduate Dentistry at the 
Given the lack of specific evidence regarding the petitioner's detailed plans in her claimed area of 
expertise and the inconsistencies regarding her work as a teacher and in the dental field, the petitioner's 
statement is inadequate to established that she seeks to enter the United States to continue working in her 
claimed area of expertise as a caricaturist. Therefore, beyond the director's decision, the AAO finds that 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). 
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 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 indicates that the petitioner 
shows talent as a caricaturist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her 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.