dismissed EB-1A Case: Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6221341 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a jeweler, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth an initial evidentiary threshold of recognition through either a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that 
meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to have been self-employed as a jeweler since February 2006.1 He has been in the 
United States since April 2016; at the time of filing, the Petitioner was a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, a 
classification that does not permit employment in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have met six criteria, summarized below: 
I (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
I (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
I (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
I (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary criteria, numbered (ii), (vi), 
and (vii). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other three claimed criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has only satisfied criterion 
(vii), relating to display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Below, we will explain why the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the other five claimed criteria. 
1 The Petitioner was 15 years old in._l _ ___,12006. 
2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
A photocopied certificate indicates tha~ l Realism awarded the Petitioner a "Saint Michael Gold 
Medal ... in the category JEWERL Y [sic] ART DECO" at thel I competition in 2016. A 
second certificate indicates that the Petitioner "has been awarded the University I !Prize for Best 
Overall Performance for Master of jewelry Academic year 2009-2010." 
The Petitioner did not establish that either of these prizes is nationally or internationally recognized. The 
University I I prize appears to be an academic award, limited to students at the University. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assoc1at1ons 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. We disagree. 
A translated certificate indicates that the Beneficiary is a "Jeweler master" witH I described as 
a craftsman's association. A letter attributed to a regional official ofl btates: "The I I 
Association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the field of Folk Art." Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fed in Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). 
After the Director asked for corroborating evidence, the Petitioner submitted a letter attributed to the 
chief executive officer ofl I stating: "In accordance with the Charter of I I [sic] 
Association, admission to the Association is granted based on the recommendation of Art Experts 
Council composed solely of nationally or internationally recognized experts." The Petitioner has not 
submitted a copy of the Charter or other governing documents to establish I l's membership 
requirements. 
We cannot consider the letter itself to be corroboration of the membership requirements as the 
following passage from the same letter raises grave questions about its origin and authenticity: 
Regarding work ethic, [the Petitioner] completes his work quickly and with the highest 
quality. On more than one occasion, [the Petitioner] was given total responsibility for 
developing critical components to our systems and each time he delivered total quality 
software. 
Apart from the tone of this passage, which more resembles an employer's recommendation letter than 
an explanation ofl l's membership requirements, the references to "critical components" and 
"quality software" have no demonstrated relevance to the matter at hand. The letter also indicates that 
3 
the Petitioner's "efforts were recently rewarded with a promotion in his profession," although the 
Petitioner claims to be self-employed. Given these anomalies, we cannot afford this letter any 
significant weight or credibility. Unresolved material inconsistencies raise questions about the 
reliability and sufficiency evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
A second letter attributed to the same official describes I ts purpose and activities, but does 
not discuss how it selects its members. This second letter indicates thatl I has 15,000 
members, a size that does not readily suggest highly selective membership requirements. 
The Petitioner has not shown that his membership in~I ---~I meets the regulatory requirements. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
A translated article from Buxoroyi Sharif contends that "[e]verybody knows [the Petitioner] even in 
foreign countries." The editor of the publication states: "The newspaper is published every Thursday 
with around ... 500 print issues containing about 4-6 pages each." This information does not establish 
that Buxoroyi Sharif constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Rather, 
it appears to be a general-interest newspaper with limited, local circulation. 
After the Director issued a request for evidence, three more pieces about the Petitioner appeared, all in 
I I 2018, more than a year after the petition's filing date in July 2017. The Petitioner must meet all 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nearly simultaneous 
appearance of these three pieces, days before the deadline for the Petitioner to respond to the request for 
evidence, raises questions about their origin and purpose. 
Also, the Petitioner did not show that these newly submitted materials.::aa==:....::=-:.:...:...=.:=c.:...L..:.=-=-=-:...:..===:..... 
article appeared in The Bukharian Times, the "Weekly Newspaper of ' A 
second article appeared in Zaman-Times, a Russian-language publication originating from,__ __ ___, 
D, New York, three miles from thd I publisher of The Bukharian Times. Both articles 
show several of the same photographs of the Petitioner. Both publications appear to be narrowly tailored 
to expatriates from I Uzbekistan, who now reside inl New York. 
A screen capture from a YouTube video, identified as an interview with 
I I' shows only "1 view" of the video. The video and the "local craft" channel that posted it are 
no longer available on YouTube as of August 18, 2020.2 
2 The web address for the video, https://www.youtube.com/watchl I is no longer active. The channel 
currently called "local craft" does not include the interview video, and did not become active unti I February 2020. 
Therefore, it cannot be the same channel that posted the interview with the Petitioner in August 2018. See 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX-OIKmaPFTnc3DBtf_gJhw/about (last visited Aug. 18, 2020). 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he established that the published material appeared in qualifying 
media, but he does not elaborate except to refer back to the materials described above, which, as 
explained, do not show that the submitted materials meet the requirements. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner has submitted several letters, attributed to officials of various 
cultural organizations, but these letters are neither persuasive nor credible. 
One letter states that the Petitioner "has made an original contribution of major significance to the field 
of traditional Uzbek village jewellery by preserving the unique artisti~e of traditional Uzbek 
jewellery." Another letter indicates that the Petitioner "was able to revivel_Jtechnique from the 19-
20 centuries and to add to them his own developed unique creative patterns and ideas." The letters do not 
explain how preserving or reviving a traditional art form constitutes an original contribution, and the 
vague reference to the Petitioner's "own developed unique creative patterns and ideas" conveys no useful 
information about the nature of those ideas and does not explain how they are of major significance. 
Uncorroborated anecdotes about satisfied customers may attest to the Petitioner's skill as a jeweler, but 
do not distinguish the Petitioner's work from that of other competent artists in his field. 
Two of the submitted letters describe the Petitioner's work in identical language. Both letters, for 
example, include this passage: 
In his work, [the Petitioner] was able to mix ethno-historical signs and symbols and the 
mytho-poetic semantics of ornamental motifs of different cultural epochs, as well as to 
perfect my technique of production, my use of precious metals and high-quality natural 
gems and minerals, to achieve the desired elevation of figurative perception of my designs. 
The use of identical language across various letters from supposedly different sources can indicate that 
the assertions in these documents are not credible. See Surinder Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d 
Cir. 2006) (upholding an adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in part on the 
similarity of the affidavits); see also Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 
2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an asylum applicant 
submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). In evaluating the evidence, 
the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 376 (quoting Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). In this 
instance, the shared language is of particular concern because of the first-person references to "my use 
of precious metals" and "my designs." 
The letters submitted by the Petitioner are of questionable origin, and do not specifically identify any 
original contribution of major significance to the field. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he "submitted extensive evidence as to his original artistic 
contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor." Rather than elaborate upon this point by 
identifying those contributions and demonstrating their significance, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director did not give sufficient weight to the letters submitted in support of the petition. We have 
explained, above, why those letters have negligible evidentiaryweight. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
We disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has met this criterion. 
The Petitioner submits what he initially described as "[e]vidence of Beneficiary's authorship of 
publications in his field of endeavor." The Petitioner's wording, "authorship of publications," omits the 
regulatory reference to scholarly articles. A scholarly article should be written for learned persons in 
that field. ("Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship.") 
Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field.3 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted a few photocopied pages of.___ ______ ___, described as a 
book for readers to "get acquainted with the modern master of jewelry art." The book appears to be very 
short; the page containing the "Conclusion" is numbered 23. The submitted pages consist mostly of large 
photographs, with text in large type. The submitted excerpts do not contain scholarly writing. Rather, 
they consist of general statements about jewelry, with some information about the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner has since submitted a complete book entitled ........,,.----,-------,-.,..,..........-----,-,........,.,.......,..,...--.,,..-,---' 
The book is dated 2018, after the July 2017 filing date. Therefore, it cannot establish eligibility as of the 
filing date. This book is deficient for several other reasons. Portions of the book are formatted in the 
manner of a scholarly article, with footnoted source citations, but other parts of the book provide only 
general information, consistent with popular rather than scholarly writing. 
There are also editor credits, but inconsistencies in the text raise questions about the extent of 
thoroughness of any editorial review. The text is somewhat disjointed, changing subjects every few pages 
with no transitions, and there are several internal author credits which should not be necessary as the 
Petitioner is the sole credited author of the entire book. These traits suggest a compilation of previously 
published articles, but the Petitioner provides no evidence of their prior publication. 
Also, several of the i I lustrations are uncaptioned with no explanation for their relevance to the surrounding 
text. Some portions of the book use the American spellings of the words "jeweler" and "jewelry," but 
other sections use the British spellings "jeweller" and "jewellery." The body of the text ends abruptly 
3 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14, 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
6 
with a description ofl I nose rings. These anomalies appear to be inconsistent with significant 
editorial review of the text. 
The Petitioner has not shown that either of his books constitute professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. A partial photocopy of the back cover of,___ ______ ___, indicates that 
100 copies of the book were printed; the incomplete copy contains no publication information. I I I !appears to have been privately printed; the spine is blank and there is no ISBN number 
or UPC bar code. There is a reference to a publishing house, but only with respect to "typesetting." 
Furthermore, the record does not establish that the books have actually been published; printing and 
binding, by themselves, do not constitute publication. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner had satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
the Director then proceeded to a final merits determination to determine if the evidence demonstrates 
that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim consistent with 
extraordinary ability in his field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.4 
While we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has met three of the initial criteria, 
we wi 11 briefly consider key findings from the Di rector's final merits determination. In that determination, 
the Director essentially stated that, while the Petitioner had satisfied the letter of the requirements for 
three of the regulatory criteria, the evidence submitted for that purpose does not establish sustained 
national or international acclaim or place the Petitioner at the top of his field. For example, regarding 
display of the Petitioner's work, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(3)(vii), but did not establish the significance of the events where 
the Petitioner displayed his work or show that his participation demonstrates sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or rebut these specific points. Instead, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director applied too stringent a standard of proof, and the Petitioner contends that the final 
merits determination should have followed the blueprint of a 1994 district court decision that is not 
binding in this case. 
The standard of proof in these proceedings is the "preponderance of the evidence," which requires that 
the evidence demonstrate that the claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made 
based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 376. In 
adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, a director must 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
7 
examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true. Id. 
In this instance, there are several serious reasons to doubt the truth of assertions in the record. We 
explained these reasons above and need not repeat them here. The Petitioner has not established 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and the record does not contain any credible evidence 
that the Petitioner has earned sustained national or international acclaim in his field. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for individuals who are able to assemble testimonials attesting to their 
talent. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8