dismissed EB-1A Case: Fine Art Photography

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S.CitizenshipandImmiurationService
AdrninistrmiveAppeals()llke (AA())
20 MassachusensAvn N.W MS2(NO
Washinuton.DC 2052%2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: JUL 1 2 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your casc. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewith theinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motion to be filed
within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhcw
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director,
TexasServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.The
appealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability as a fine art photographerand art educator.1 The director
determinedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability andfailedto
submitextensivedocumentationof her sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. The director
alsodeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnotsubmittedclearevidencethatshewouldcontinuetowork
in herareaof expertisein theUnitedStates.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's "sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" and
present"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the
Act and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthat
analiencanestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthe regulatorycategoriesof evidenceat
8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(ii)- (iv) and(vi) - (viii). Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO will
upholdthedirector'sdecision.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.-- Visasshallfirst be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrants
whoarealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. -- An alien is describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
in thefieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
1The petitioner wasinitially representedby attorney In this decision,the term"previouscounser
shallreferto
Page3
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continue
workin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)and legacyImmigrationand Naturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov. 29. 1991). Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of thefield of
endeavor.Id.: 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)
or throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetencategoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S.Courtof Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiled underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Although
the court upheld the AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedtomeetagivenevidentiarycriterion.2With respecttothecriteriaat
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimate
concernsaboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcerns
shouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry, the courtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto
satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at I122
(citingto8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof afinalmeritsdetermination.In thismatter.theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnotsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfy
theregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically, thecourt statedthattheAA0 hadunilaterally imposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria3
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international experts in their
disciplinesorfields.
In orderto demonstratethatmembershipin anassociationmeetsthis criterion,a petitionermust
show that the associationrequiresoutstandingachievementas an essentialcondition for
admissionto membership. Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a
given field, minimum educationor experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,
recommendationsby colleaguesor currentmembers,or paymentof dues,do not satisfythis
criterion assuch requirementsdo not constituteoutstandingachievements.Further,the overall
prestigeof a given associationis not determinative;the issuehereis membershiprequirements
ratherthanthe association'soverall reputation.
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility for this regulatory criterion or submit specific
documentationand argumentsaddressingthis criterion in responseto the director's notice of
intentto deny(NOID). TheAAO notesthatthe director'sDecember13,2010NOID informed
thepetitionerthattherecordlackedevidenceof hermembershipin associationsin thefield for
which classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexperts.
On appeal,counselassertsfor the first time in theseproceedingsthatthe petitionermeetsthis
fromd
itt d
for this regulatorycriterion for the first time on appeal wherea servicecenterhasrequested
specificevidencein a NOID, andthepetitionerfailed to complywith therequest,thatparticular
evidencewill notbeconsideredon appeal.As thepetitionerwasputonnoticeof adeficiencyin
the evidenceand was given an opportunity to respondto that deficiency, the AAO will not
acceptevidenceofferedfor the first time on appeal. SeeMatter of Soriano,19I&N Dec.764
(BIA 1988);seealsoMatterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533(BIA 1988). If thepetitionerseeks
evidenceto be considered,shemust submit the documentsm responseto the director's request
for evidence.Id. Regardless,noneof theprecedinglettersspecificallystatethatthepetitioner
holds"membership"in the aforementionedmuseums.A petitionmustbe filed with anyinitial
evidencerequiredby 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.
On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot claim to meetany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatherrelationshipwith theaforementioned
museumsas an exhibitor, workshop instructor, project partner, and educator constitutes her
"membershipin associationsin the field" (emphasisadded)asmandatedby the unambiguous
languagein the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii). Moreover,thereis no documentary
evidence(suchasbylawsor rulesof admission)showingthatthe MOMA, MDB, andtheQMA
require outstandingachievementsof their members,as judged by recognizednational or
internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatshemeetsthis regulatorycriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or
othermajor media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethetitle, date,and author of thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation.
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarilyaboutthe
petitionerand,asstatedin theregulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia. To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchas the New York Times,nominallyservea
particularlocality but would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,
unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.4
Thepetitionersubmittedaphotographof herselfandfour othersseatedon acouchin a television
studio. A captionbelowthephotographstates:"Univision dedicateda onehourprogram'En tu
communidad' In you [sic] community to Project Luz, featuring [the petitioner] and students."
The petitioneralsosubmitteda photographof herselfandthreeothersseatedon a couchin what
appearsto be the sametelevision studio. A captionbelow the secondphotographstates: "[The
petitioner] ' The petitionerfailed to
submitvideo footageof her appearanceson the showsor otherevidence(suchasa television
broadcasttranscript) demonstratingthat the shows were about her. Going on record without
supportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin
theseproceedings.Matterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r1998)(citingMatterof
TreasureCraft of California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg'l Comm'r1972)). In addition,previous
counsel'sApril 16, 2010letter states: "NYl, Time WarnerCable's24-hournewschannelin
New York City, featured[the petitioner] at her exhibition's openingat QMA." Without
documentaryevidenceto supportthe claim, the assertionsof counselwill not satisfy the
petitioner'sburdenof proof. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
Matter of Obaigbena,19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988);Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec.
1,3n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).A petition
mustbe filed with anyinitial evidencerequiredby the regulation. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).The
nonexistenceor otherunavailabilityof primaryevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility.
4 Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost, but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual's reputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page6
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Finally, regardingthe precedingtelevision programssaid to have
includedthepetitioner,theplain languageof this regulatorycriterion requires"publishedmaterial
about the alien" including "the title, date and author of the material." A television show
featuringthe petitioner doesnot meettheserequirements. Further,the petitioner did not submit
documentaryevidenceindicatingthedatesof thetelevisionbroadcasts.
ThepetitionersubmittedaJanuary12,2010articlein theNewYorkPostentitled"Mayor's State
of theCity pledge: We'll domorefor little guy." Thepetitionerappearsin thebackgroundof a
photographshowingMayorBloombergthataccompaniesthe article,but noneof the submitted
materialis aboutthepetitioner.Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii),
however,requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthealien." See,e.g.,AccordNegro-Plumpe
v.Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *1,*7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga finding thatarticles
aboutashowarenotabouttheactor).
Thepetitionersubmitteda March2009articleabouthe
"[The petitioner]liveslife asart" andanApril 2010articleaboutherin LongIslandCity Courier
Magazineentitled but thereis no circulation evidenceshowingthat these
magazinesqualifyas"major" media.
The petitionersubmitteda March 23, 2006 arti
but the article is not aboutthepetitionerandonly mentionsher in
passmg.
ThepetitionersubmittedaFebruary10,2010articlein Riodela Platabilingualnewspaper(New
York) ' but the article is not aboutthe petitionerandthe authorwasnot
identified asrequiredby theplain languageof this regulatorycriterion.
Thepetitionersubmittedanarticleentitled"Latinasdisplayartwork"in Vidaenel Valle,but the
dateof thearticlewasnotprovidedasrequiredby theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioneralsosubmitteda January23, 2009articlein the FresnoBee
entitled"Latinaartistsshowcasetheir gifts in 'EspadadeDosFilos'" Theprecedingarticlesin
Vidaenel ValleandtheFresnoBeedo not evenmentionthepetitioner.
Page7
author identified), a 2007 article in SlobodnaDalmacija entitled "[The petitioner], Argentine
Modern Artist andAmerican Immigrant," an undatedarticle in Hoy entitled "Photo Workshops
in Castilian"(no authoridentified),anundatedarticlein El Diario La Prensaentitled"Creative
PhotographyWorkshop"(noauthoridentified),a March12,2006articlein El Diario La Prensa
entitled "Cultural Outlook" (no authoridentified), a March 2006article in El Correo de Queens
entitled "Agenda: Cultural Events: PalabrasLocales" (no author identified), and a September
20, 2010article in El Diario La Prensaentitled "PhotographyTechniquesin ProjectLuz." The
latter article was publishedsubsequentto thepetition's May 6, 2010filing date. The petitioner,
however,mustdemonstrateher eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);
MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).Accordingly,theAAO will not
considertheSeptember20, 2010articlein El Diario La Prensain this proceeding.Further,the
Englishlanguagetranslationsaccompanyingthe precedingarticleswere incompleteand they
werenot certifiedby thetranslatorasrequiredby theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Any
documentcontainingforeign languagesubmittedto USCIS shall be accompaniedby a full
Englishlanguagetranslationthatthetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby the
translator'scertificationthathe or sheis competentto translatefrom the foreignlanguageinto
English.Id.
The petitioner submitteda March 1, 2005 article in New York Daily News promoting her
exhibitionattheExit Art Galleryentitled"Latitas:A RecycledLife," buttheauthorof thearticle
wasnot identifiedasrequiredby theplain languageof this regulatorycriterion. Thepetitioner
also submitted an article in New York Daily News entitled "PhotographyWorkshop at Local
Project" announcinga classtaughtby the petitioner, but the materialis not aboutthe petitioner.
Instead,the article providesgeneralinformation promoting her upcomingcreativeworkshopon
photographyscheduledat Local Projectin Queens.As previouslydiscussed,theplainlanguage
of the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthe publishedmaterialbe "aboutthe
alien" relating to her work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. Compare8 C.F.R.
§204.5(i)(3)(i)(C)relatingtooutstandingresearchersor professorspursuanttosection203(b)(1)(B)
of the Act. It cannotbe crediblyassertedthat the precedingarticle is "about" the petitioner.
Further,thedateandauthorof thearticlewerenot identifiedasrequiredby theplainlanguageof
theregulationthisregulatorycriterion.Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda November26,2008article
about her in New York Daily News entitled "I wanted to sharemy passion." On appeal,the
petitioner submitsa January30, 2011 article abouther in New YorkDaily Newsentitled "View
of thecity thru rose-coloredlens,"but thearticlewaspublishedsubsequentto thepetition'sMay
6,2010filing date.As previouslydiscussed,thepetitionermustdemonstratehereligibility atthe
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49.
Accordingly,theAAO will not considertheJanuary30,2011articlein NewYorkDaily Newsin
thisproceeding.
In responseto thedirector'sNOID, thepetitionersubmittedinformationaboutNew YorkDaily
News,theNew YorkPost,El Diario La Prensa,La Nacion,QueensChronicle,theFresnoBee,
andSlobodnaDalmacija from Wikipedia,an onlineencyclopedia.With regardto information
from Wikipedia,thereareno assurancesaboutthereliability of thecontentfrom thisopen,user-
Page8
edited internet site.' SeeLamilem Badasa v. Michael Makasey,540 F.3d 909 (84 Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the AAO will not assignweight to information for which Wikipediais the source.
Thepetitioner alsosubmittedinformationaboutVidaenel Valle,Hoy, El Correo deQueens,and
Defining TrendsMagazinefrom thepublications'own websites. USCISneednot rely on self-
promotionalmaterial.SeeBragav.Poulos,No. CV 06 5105SJO(C. D. CA July 6, 2007)aff"d
2009WL 604888(9thCir. 2009)(concludingthat theAAO did not haveto rely on self-serving
assertionson the coverof a magazineasto the magazine'sstatusasmajormedia). Thus,the
petitionerhasfailedto submitdocumentaryevidenceestablishingthattheprecedingpublications
qualify asmajormedia.
The petitioner's appellatesubmissionincludesa May 15,2011article postedon WNYC radio's
websiteentitled "MuseumsReachOut to Artists With SpecialNeeds,"but the article was
publishedsubsequentto the petition's May 6, 2010 filing date. As previously discussed,the
petitionermustdemonstrateher eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);
MatterofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec.at 49. Accordingly,theAAO will not considerthe May 15,
2011WNYC article in this proceeding. The petitioner'sevidenceincludedadditionalonline
materialfrom Art Slant,New York Foundationof the Arts, andthe QMA discussingprojects
involving thepetitioner,but noneof thesearticlesmeetall of therequirementsof theregulation
at8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Forexample,thearticlesweredeficientin thattheydid notinclude
anauthor,theywerenot aboutthepetitioner,or theylackedevidencethattheywerepublishedin
majormedia.
Evenif theAAO wereto concludethat the November26, 2008articleaboutthepetitionerin
NewYorkDaily Newsentitled"I wantedto sharemy passion"meetsall of theelementsof this
regulatorycriterion, section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act requiresthe submissionof extensive
evidence. Consistentwith that statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresmaterialabout the alien in "professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia"in theplural Significantly,not all of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)
and(ix) only requireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a singlehighsalary.Thus,theAAO can
inferthatthepluralin theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In adifferentcontext,federal
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer:
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content
collaborativeencyclopedia,thatis, a voluntaryassociationof individuals andgroupsworking to developa
common resourceof human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyonewith an Internet
connectionto alter its content. Pleasebeadvisedthatnothingfound herehasnecessarilybeenreviewedby
people with the expertiserequired to provide you with complete,accurateor reliable information. . .
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given
article may recently have been changed,vandalized or altered by someonewhose opinion does not
correspondwith thestateof knowledgein therelevantfields.
Seehttp_Ben.wikipedja.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GeneraldisclainJenaccessedon June21, 2012, copy incorporatedinto
therecordof proceeding.
Page9
courtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is
usedin a regulation. SeeMaramjaya v. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir.
March26, 2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30,
2006)(upholdingan interpretationthatthe regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor
"a" foreign equivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(2)requiresa single degreeratherthan a
combinationof academiccredentials).Therefore,a singlequalifyingarticleaboutthepetitioner
limited to only one major publicationdoesnot meetthe plain languagerequirementsof this
regulatorycriterion.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudgeof
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
Onappeal,counselstates:
The alien hasbeeninvited to be a Panelistat severaloccasions.Her participationhas
beenevidencedthroughthe recommendationletters . . . . Shewas a panelis
The petitioner's appellatesubmissionincludes recommendationletters from an Associate
Educatorfor Teenand CommunityProgramsat the MOMA, the Director of Educationand
PublicProgramsatMDB, aCuratoratMDB, theExecutiveDirectorof theQMA, theDirectorof
Educationat theNassauCountyMuseumof Art, theSeniorCoordinatorfor Art AccessLibrary
ProgramsandAutismInitiativesat theQMA, a producerfor FLUID (a newmedialaboratoryin
Queens),and the managerof Praxis International Art Gallery in New York. None of the
precedinglettersstatethat the petitionerparticipatedas a judge on any panelsor identify the
specificwork that sheevaluated. Theplain langugeof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)
requiresevidenceof the petitioner's"participation,either individually or on a panel,asa judge of
thework of others"(emphasisadded)in thefield. Thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstrating
that the petitioner'sparticipationon thepanelsidentifiedby counselinvolvedjudging thework of
otherphotographersor arteducators.As previouslydiscussed,goingon recordwithout supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meeting the burden of proof in these
proceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec.at 158. A petitionmustbe filed with any initial
evidencerequiredby 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).Merelysubmittinglettersclaimingthatthepetitionerservedonvariouspanels
without specifyingthe work sheactuallyjudged is insufficientto establisheligibility for this
regulatorycriterion. Thephrase"a judge" impliesa formal designationin ajudging capacity,
eitheronapanelor individuallyasspecifiedat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).Theregulationcannot
bereadto includeeveryinformalinstanceof lecturingor speakingataneducationalforumor art
Page10
conference. Accordingly, the petitioner has not establishedthat she meetsthis regulatory
criterion.
Evidenceofthe alien's original scientific,scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof major significancein thefield.
The directordiscussedthe evidencesubmittedfor this criterion andfound that the petitioner
failed to establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director's
findings for this criterion or offer additionalarguments.The AAO, therefore,considersthis
issueto beabandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);
Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)
(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff sclaimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto the
AAO). Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Thepetitionersubmitteda copyof herbookSeeingin English: An introductiontophotography
for andwith adultstudentsandcopiesof herbroadsheetProjectLuz whichpresentsthework of
her students,but there is no documentaryevidenceshowing that the precedingbook and
broadsheetequateto "professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia." Further,the
plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requiresevidenceof the "alien's
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield." [Emphasisadded.]Generally,scholarlyarticlesare
written by andfor expertsin a particularfield of study,arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferences
to sourcesusedin the articles. Thereis no evidencedemonstratingthat the materialsfor novice
photographersauthoredby the petitionerwere peer-reviewed,containany referencesto sources,
or were otherwise considered"scholarly articles." Accordingly, the petitioner has not
establishedthatshemeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or
showcases.
Thepetitionersubmitteddocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatshehasdisplayedherwork at
artisticexhibitionsandshowcases.Accordingly,thepetitionerhasestablishedthatshemeetsthe
plain languagerequirementsof this regulatorycriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
Onappeal,counselstates:
The alien has played a pivotal role in venturing partnershipsbetweenand with
organizationsof distinguishedreputation. One of which is QMA . . . . The alien
exhibitedherArtistic Photographyat QMA, andincorporateda workshopwith Museum
settingfor theunderserved.QMA partneredwith theQueensLibrary andPublic Schools
Page11
in Queensasa result of theserecognizedworkshops. As a result theseinstitutions were
accordedgrants from md Library Services. A letter of
recommendationprovidedb 1- ExecutiveDirectorclearlyidentifiesthe
alien'sleadinarolein thispartnership.
Further,the Alien is a founderof "Project Luz" andhassuccessfullypartneredwith El
MuseoDel BarrioandMOMA leadingtheventureandcoordinatingall theexhibitsand
workshopsbetweentheseinstitutes.
While thepetitionerhassubmitteddocumentationindicatingthatshedisplayedherphotography
at the QMA andworked with the MOMA, MDB, and the QMA to coordinateexhibits and
educationalworkshops,there is no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat her role was
leadingor critical for themuseums.Forinstance,thepetitionerfailedto submitanorganizational
chart or other evidencedocumentingwhere her positions fell within the museums' general
hierarchies.In determiningwhetherthepetitioner'sroleswereleadingor critical, theAAO looksat
herperformancein thoserolesandhowtheycontributedto theoverallsuccessor standingof the
museums.The petitioner'sevidencedoesnot demonstratehow herpositionsdifferentiatedher
from the othereducatorsandmuseumstaff at theQMA, the MOMA, andMDB, let alonetheir
directorsandcurators.Theevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnot establishthatshewas
responsiblefor theprecedingmuseums'successor standingtoadegreeconsistentwith themeaning
of "leadingor criticalrole." Moreover,therecordlacksdocumentaryevidenceshowingthatthe
QMA and MDB haveearneda distinguishedreputationrelativeto othersuccessfulmuseums.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthisregulatorycriterion.
B. Summary
The petitionerhasfailed to satisfythe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof
evidence.
C. PriorO-1NonimmigrantVisaStatus
Therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerwasthebeneficiaryof threeapproved0-1 nonimmigrant
visapetitionsfor analienof extraordinaryability in thearts. Althoughthewords"extraordinary
ability" areusedin theAct for classificationof artistsunderboththenonimmigrant0-1 andthefirst
preferenceemployment-basedimmigrant categones,the statuteand regulationsdefine the term
differentlyfor cachclassification.Section10l(a)(46)of the Act states,"The term'extraordinary
ability' means,for purposesof section101(a)(15)(O)(i),in thecaseof thearts,distinction." The
0-1 regulationreiteratesthat"[e]xtraordinaryability in thefield of artsmeansdistinction." 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standardthan that requiredfor the immigrant
classification,which definesextraordinaryability as "a level of expertiseindicatingthat the
individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop of thefield of endeavor.
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).Theevidentiarycriteriafor thesetwo classificationsalsodiffer in several
respects,for example,nominationsfor awardsor prizesareacceptableevidenceof O-1eligibility,
8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A),but the immigrantclassificationrequiresactualreceiptof nationally
or internationallyrecognizedawardsor prizes. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i).Giventheclearstatutory
Page12
and regulatory distinction between these two classifications,the petitioner's receipt of O-1
nonimmigrantclassificationis notevidenceof hereligibility for immigrantclassificationasanalien
with extraordinaryability. Further,theAAO doesnot find thatanapprovalof a nonimmigrantvisa
mandatestheapprovalof a similar immigrantvisa. Eachpetitionmustbedecidedon acase-by-case
basisuponreviewof theevidenceof record.
It must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approvesprior
nonimmigrantpetitions. See,e.g.,Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.
2003);IKEA USv. USDept.of Justice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999);FedinBrothersCo.
Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989). BecauseUSCISspendslesstimereviewingI-
129nonimmigrantpetitionsthan I-140 immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrantpetitionsare
simply approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso
TexasA&M Univ.v. Upchurch,99Fed.Appx.556(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior approvalsdo
not precludeUSCISfrom denyinganextensionof theoriginalvisabasedon a reassessmentof
thealien'squalifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593,597(Comm'r 1988). 11wouldbeabsurdto
suggestthat USCISor anyagencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbindingprecedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd.v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,the AAO's authority over the service centersis comparableto the relationship
betweena courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
nonimmigrantpetition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the
contradictorydecisionof aservicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav.INS,No.98-2855,
2000WL 282785,*1, *3 (E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.5I
(2001).
III. CONTINUINGWORKIN THEAREAOFEXPERTISEIN THEUNITEDSTATES
The statuteand regulationsrequirethat the petitionerseeksto continuework in her areaof
expertisein 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). Such evidence may include letter(s) from
prospectiveemployer(s),evidenceof prearrangedcommitmentssuchascontracts,or a statement
from thepetitionerdetailingplanson howsheintendsto continuehiswork in theUnitedStates.
Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerfailed to submit"clearevidence"that shewould continue
to work in her areaof expertisein the UnitedStatesasrequiredby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(5). On appeal,the petitionersubmitsa letter from PraxisInternationalArt Gallery
discussingherwork in the United States. The petitioneralsosubmitslettersfrom the Nassau
CountyMuseumof Art and the OMA discussingongoingprojectsand upcomingworkshops
involving the petitioner. Accordingly,the AAO finds that the petitionerhassubmittedclear
evidencethat shewill continueto work in herareaof expertisein theUnited States.
Page13
IV. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin support of a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Even if the petitionerhad submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1)a"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualisoneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and (2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise."8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.Whilethe
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis notindicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageattheverytopof thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin afinalmeritsdetermination?Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthe
petitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threecategoriesof evidence.
Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
^TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d Cir.
2004). In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice
thatmadethe last decisionin this matier, 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ji).Seealso section103(a)(1)of theAct; section
204(b)of theAct; DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec.458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacyINS, now
USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).