dismissed EB-1A Case: Graphic Design

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 Date: Nw 1 6 2005 
EAC 03 163 50302 
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: 
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. 
> Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative 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 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. Q: 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. 
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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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 in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 28, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
graphic arts designer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Page 3 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Honor and a Certificate of Merit from the Editor-in-Chief of The 
Famous Figures of the Contemporary Arts Circles in China. The Certificate of Merit states: "IN VIEW OF 
OUR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS AND REMARKABLE CHIEVEMENTS [sic] TO THE ARTS 
CIRCLES, YOU HAVE RECORDED IN A LARGE AND AUTHORITY DICTIONARY [sic]." 
The Certificate of Honor states: "YOUR WORKS OF ART HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE WHOLE SET 
SHOW OF THE FAMOUS FIGURES WORKES [sic] EXHIBITION OF THE ARTS CIRCLES IN CHINA, 
AND GAINED Silver PRISE [sic]. SO WE AWARD THE CERTIFICATE TO YOU AS AN 
ENCOURAGEMENT." The word "Silver" and the petitioner's name are handwritten into blank spaces on 
the certificate.' Given the glaring inconsistency between the original version and the appellate version, the 
misspellings, the grammatical errors, and the fill-in-the-blank entry options on this certificate, it is not 
possible to conclude that this certificate is tantamount to a nationally recognized prize for artisltic excellence. 
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, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591- 
92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the 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. 
The petitioner also submitted certificates stating that his work appeared in A Collection of the 20'h Century 
International Notable Works art volume and that his name appeared in The Chinese Modem Notable 
Catalogue. 
In regard to the certificates stating that the petitioner and his work were included in A Collection of the 2dh 
Century International Notable Works, The Chinese Modem Notable Catalogue, and The Famous Figures of 
the Contemporary Arts Circles in China, we note that the record includes no evidence showing the 
petitioner's actual published entry in these three publications. Even if such evidence were to be provided by 
the petitioner, we note that an artist's limited entry into a comprehensive directory or art volume does not 
constitute a nationally recognized award for excellence. Inclusion in an art volume or biographical dictionary is 
far more relevant to the "published materials" criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a "fill-in-the-blank" certificate stating that he was "invited to present" at an art 
exchange exhibition in Australia in 1997. In this instance, the petitioner's name and the date are entered into 
blank spaces. The record does not indicate how many individuals received this "International Cultural 
Diploma," but the existence of a pre-printed form certificate suggests multiple recipients. 
The petitioner also submitted a Certificate of Merit stating that his work won "1" prize and outstanding gifted 
prize" at the Shanghai Calligraphy Competition in 1979. Such an award is reflective of local recognition, 
rather than national or international recognition. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner 
has won a top prize or award at a juried art competition at the national or international level. 
1 On appeal, the petitioner submits the exact same certificate, but the word "Silver" is not handwritten into the blank 
space. The certificate reads " . . . AND GAINED PRISE." [sic] 
Page 4 
The significance and importance of the certificates presented by the petitioner are not self-evident. The 
petitioner offers no supporting evidence showing that theses certificates constitute top honors at the national 
or international level. It should be emphasized that the petitioner must submit documentary evidence showing 
the degree of recognition accorded to his awards. The evidence provided does not indicate the total number 
of certificates distributed, the criteria used in determining recipients, or the level of media coverage associated 
with the award presentations. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive 
documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must 
provide adequate evidence to establish that the certificates presented under this criterion enjoy significant 
national or international stature. Simply alleging that an award is nationally or internationally recognized 
cannot suffice to satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class$ication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted what are alleged to be his membership certificates for the China Artists Association 
and '"The Cultural Research Institute of the Chinese and Foreign Notables." The membership certificate for 
The Cultural Research Institute of the Chinese and Foreign Notables states: "Owing to yuor [sic] achievents 
[sic] in the culture and art and contributions in developing national culture and cultural exchange between 
Chian [sic] and foreign countries . . . ." [remaining text illegible] The frequent misspellings and poor quality 
of this certificate raise serious questions regarding its authenticity. The petitioner has not resolved these 
discrepancies with competent objective evidence. See Matter of Ho at 582, 591-92. Even if we were to 
accept the authenticity of this certificate (which we do not), the record includes no evidence of the bylaws or 
official membership requirements for The Cultural Research Institute of the Chinese and Foreign Notables. 
The petitioner also submitted a translation of a certificate issued by the "Institute of Traditional Chinese 
Paintings in Henan Province" stating: "THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT YOU QUALIFY IN FIRST GRADE 
NATIONAL ARTISTS ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS OF TITLE PROFICIENCY OF 
CUTURAL [sic] CIRCLES IN HENAN PROVINCE." The clarity of the photocopy of the original certificate 
submitted by the petitioner is of such poor quality that it appears as though the certificate has been 
photocopied numerous times. The outside border of the certificate is half-missing and the difference between 
the style of the text for petitioner's name and the style of the text for the remainder of certificate is 
immediately apparent. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter allegedly issued by the Institute of Traditional Chinese Paintings in 
Henan Province. At the top of this letter (most of which was written in Chinese), the name of the institute 
appears in English as follows: "LNSTITUYE [sic] OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE PAINTINGS IN HENAN 
PROVINCE." At the bottom of the letter, there is a seal on which the name of the institute appears again in 
English, but this time as "INSTITUTE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE PAINTINGS IN HENAN 
PROVINCE." The incorrect spelling of "Institute" in English at the top of this letter raises questions 
regarding its authenticity. The letter offers general information about the institute, but it does not cite any 
particular membership bylaws or official admission requirements. There is no evidence to establish that the 
petitioner's membership in this organization required outstanding achievement or that he was evaluated by art 
experts at the national or international level in consideration of his admission to membership. 
The petitioner also submits a letter allegedly issued by the China Artists Association listing its membership 
requirements. This letter has no address, phone number, or any other information through which this 
association may be contacted in order to verify the letter's contents or the validity of the petitioner's 
membership status. Nevertheless, the information provided in the letter does not establish that the petitioner 
was evaluated by art experts at the national or international level in consideration of his admission to 
membership. 
Published materials 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 necessaly translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, 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 from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small locaI 
community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be a notice informing him of inclusion of his work in Twenty 
Century lntemational Culture Book (Comprehensive Volume I). The petitioner also submitted partially 
translated "invitation" letters from the Dictionary of World Notables and the World Notables Catalog, but 
these letters were not accompanied by a full English language translation as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, there is no evidence of the actual published material about the 
petitioner appearing in these publications. In regard to the certificates stating that the petitioner and his work 
were included in A Collection of the 2gh Century lnternational Notable Works, The Chinese Modern Notable 
Catalogue, and The Famous Figures of the Contemporary Arts Circles in China, we note that the record 
includes no evidence of the actual published material for these three publications either. The plain wording of 
2 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
this criterion, however, requires the petitioner to submit "published material about the alien" and evidence of 
"the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." The record includes no such evidence. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits what is alleged to be an article entitled "Introduction to [the petitioner]" in 
China Contemporary Calligraphers and Artists Magazine: The 4th Edition." The petitioner, however, has failed 
to provide the date and the author of this material as required by this criterion. Furthermore, there is no evidence 
showing that this magazine has substantial national readership. 
We find no evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim in the national media of 
the United States or China. 
Evidence of the alien's participdion, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which class$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. For example, serving as a judge for a national 
competition involving professional artists is of far greater probative value than serving as a judge for a local 
competition involving amateur artists. 
The petitioner submitted a Letter of Appointment allegedly issued by the China Artists Association stating: 
"[The petitioner] from Institute of Traditional Chinese Paintings in Henan Province is now appointed as vice 
chairman of Appraisal Committee of National Arts Exhibition in Henan Province." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a second letter allegedly issued by the China Artists Association stating that 
he was appointed as vice chairman and "Committee Member of Appraisal Committee of National Art Works 
Exhibition" from 2001 to 2004. 
The preceding letters, which appear to relate to the same appointment, have no address, phone number, or any 
other information through which the China Artists Association may be contacted. Furthermore, the record 
includes no information about the exhibition or evidence of the petitioner's activities as a judge for this 
committee. We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." In this instance, the record lacks information regarding the 
nature of the petitioner's duties in this capacity, the events at which he served as a judge, the names of the 
individuals he evaluated, and their level of expertise (i.e.- novice, amateur, or professional). Furthermore, we 
note the absence of published material or national publicity surrounding the petitioner's involvement at this 
exhibition. We cannot ignore that the statute and regulations require "extensive documentation" of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's activities involved 
evaluating professional artists at the national level, we cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from Chinese arts organizations based in New York. These letters 
describe the petitioner as a talented artist, but they are not adequate to demonstrate that his artistic 
contributions have had a major impact on the greater field. Original submissions for display or exhibition are 
expected of artists and do not set the petitioner apart from other capable professionals. The record does not 
indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other artists, nor does it show that any specific works by the 
petitioner are particularly renowned as works of contemporary art. The petitioner has not shown that his 
works have garnered widespread attention, often command unusually high prices, or are in high demand 
among museum curators or gallery owners throughout the United States or China. Thus, there is no 
indication that the petitioner has made a contribution of major significance to his field. 
An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce ample unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's artwork has 
been unusually influential or highly acclaimed at the national or international level, we cannot conclude that it 
constitutes a contribution of major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that he satisfies this criterion, but the record contains no evidence to support 
his assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). The record includes 
no evidence showing that the petitioner has authored a "scholarly" article or that such an article has been 
widely circulated or viewed by others in his field as significantly influential. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted various photographs and samples of what are alleged to be his artistic creations. The 
petitioner also submitted a letter allegedly issued by the China Foreign Art Exhibition Company stating that it 
has collected the petitioner's work, but this letter has no address, phone number, or any other information 
through which this company may be contacted. We further note that letter is a pre-printed form letter with the 
petitioner's name entered into a blank space by the salutation. 
In this case, the specific venues where the petitioner's artwork has been displayed have not been identified. 
In fact, there is no contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or art brochure) demonstrating the 
petitioner's involvement in any art exhibition or showcase in the U.S. or China. As noted previously, going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Sofici at 158, 165. 
It must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her work to be 
displayed or sold. We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works have been displayed at 
significant national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have been featured along 
side those of artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated his regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the 
Page 8 
display of his work alone. The evidence presented by the petitioner is not sufficient to show that his 
exhibitions enjoy a national reputation or that participation in his exhibitions was a privilege extended to only 
top national or international artists. 
Evidence that the alien has perjormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The petitioner submitted letters of appointment for various positions (such as vice chairman of China Folk Art 
Ensemble, vice chairman of Appraisal Committee of National Arts Exhibition in Henan Province, and 
researcher at the Institute of Traditional Chinese Paintings in Henan Province), but these letters have no 
address, phone number, or any other information through which the organizations offering those 
appointments may be contacted. Nevertheless, it has not been shown that that these organizations have 
earned a distinguished reputation at the national or international level. Nor has the petitioner provided 
evidence showing his specific responsibilities for these organizations and his individual impartance to their 
overall success. In this case, the evidence is not adequate to demonstrate that the petitioner has performed in a 
leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a March 4, 2002 letter allegedly issued by the Institute of Traditional Chinese 
Paintings in Henan ~rovince.~ This letter states that the petitioner earns a yearly salary of RMB 40,000 Yuan 
and that he earns another RMB 60,000 Yuan for his creative works. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 12, 2003 letter from Andy Lin, President of Linco Printing, Inc., stating 
that his company will employ the petitioner at an "annual salary of $32,000." 
The record, however, includes no official financial documentation (such as payroll records or income tax 
forms) showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any given period of time prior to the petitian's filing date. 
A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 
(Comrn. 1971). Further, the plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a 
high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his 
compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner 
earns a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid artists in the United States or China. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits what he alleges is a receipt (dated April 10, 2002) from the "Zhengzhou 
City Super Market Building" showing that it paid an amount of "one hundred twenty thousand RMB yuan" 
3 This letter has no address, phone number, or any other information through which this institute may be contacted. 
Page 9 
for "6,000 videotapes of [the petitioner's] career." The record contains no evidence establishing the 
authenticity of this handwritten receipt or evidence showing that such videotapes exist. For example, the 
record includes no credible documentation such as an income tax form showing that this money was reported 
to the government or a bank statement reflecting deposit of the proceeds from the sale. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner claims that the receipt for 6,000 videotapes discussed under the preceding criterion is evidence of 
his commercial success. The plain wording of this criterion, however, indicates that it is intended for 
"performing" artists such as musicians and actresses rather than visual artists such as the petitioner. Nevertheless, 
as previously noted, there is no evidence establishing the authenticity of the receipt or evidence confirming the 
existence of the videotapes. Even if we were to accept the authenticity of the receipt (which we do not), there is 
no indication that selling 6,000 videotapes is a substantial quantity given the immense size of China's 
population. Nor has the petitioner shown that his videotape has consistently generated greater sales than that 
of comparable videotapes on the market. In this case, there is no evidence showing significant national or 
international distribution of the petitioner's videotape outside of Zhengzhou City or evidence of his 
widespread commercial success. 
We find that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a graphic mist to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(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. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.