dismissed EB-1A Case: Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 33079739 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a jeweler, seeks classification as an individual 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a pet1t10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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). 
IT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner began making traditional Uzbek jewelry in 2010. The record reflects his involvement 
at various craft festivals since that time. He arrived in the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor 
in September 2022, and he seeks to make and sell jewelry inl IN ew York. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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). 
When he initially filed the petition, the Petitioner did not clearly state which of the criteria he claimed 
to satisfy. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed to have satisfied four of 
the criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to have met additional criteria, which we will address further below. 
First, we will explain why we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner had not satisfied 
any of the claimed criteria. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claimed to satisfy the requirements of this criterion through his membership in the 
Hunarmand Association in Uzbekistan. As explained below, we agree with the Director's conclusion 
that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficiently reliable evidence to meet the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters from claimed officials ofHunarmand Association, on letterhead 
that reads: "Regional Administration ofl !Association/ HUN ARMAND/Folk craftsmen, 
Artisans and Painters of the Republic Uzbekistan [sic]." One letter, signed by the "Head of 'Hunarmand' 
Association," indicated that membership "is open only to highly skilled masters who are among the few 
on top of their fields and requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or 
internationally recognized experts in the respective field of folk art." The official stated that the Petitioner 
"was accepted to Hunarmand Association in 201 0" based on the recommendation of "an internationally 
2 
known art critic and the Uzbek applied arts researcher and a nationally and internationally recognized 
expert in the Jewelry of traditional Uzbek folk arts." 
One of the recommending individuals provided his own letter, stating: "in 2015, as a member of the Art 
Experts Council of Hunarmand Association of Uzbekistan ... I recommended [the Petitioner's] 
admission to Hunarmand Association based on his outstanding achievements in the field of Uzbek 
traditional Jewelry art products." We also note that the submitted letters disagree as to whether the 
Petitioner became a member of Hunarmand in 2010 or 2015. The Petitioner's translated membership 
certificate shows a date of issuance several years later, in May 2022, with no indication that the Petitioner 
was a member before that date. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for "[ t ]he section of the association's constitution or bylaws which discuss 
the criteria for membership" and "the qualifications required of the reviewers on the review panel of the 
association," along with "[i]nformation to establish that the individuals who review prospective members' 
applications are recognized as national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a document with the heading "Extract From Hunarmand By-Laws." 
The relevant portion of the document indicates that, "[t]o be considered for membership, artists and 
craftsmen must have a proven record of outstanding achievements in their field." The document lists the 
following examples: 
Winning prestigious awards or competitions 
Having their work exhibited in major galleries or museums 
Writing or publishing books or articles on their craft 
Teaching or mentoring other artists and craftsmen 
Making significant contributions to the preservation of Uzbek art and culture 
The document is in English, with no indication that it has been translated from Uzbek, Russian, or any 
other language. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not confirm the source, 
and therefore the authenticity, of this document. 
The Petitioner submitted a printout from the website oflntangible Cultural Heritage of Uzbekistan (ICH), 
which indicates that Hunarmand was "founded by the Decree of the President of the Republic of 
Uzbekistan No. 1741 'On Measures of State Support for further development of folk arts and crafts' from 
March 31, 1997." The ICH printout does not indicate that membership is limited to individuals with 
outstanding achievements. Rather, it describes Hunarmand as an organization that serves all artists and 
artisans. The Petitioner did not submit a copy of Decree No. 1741, which created Hunarmand, or any 
governing document directly attributed to Hunarmand. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider a previously submitted letter from 
Hunarmand' s chief executive officer, attesting to the recognition of the individual who claimed to have 
recommended the Petitioner for membership. The Director mentioned this letter in the denial notice, 
saying the Petitioner had submitted it "[i]n support of the author's claims [to be] a nationally and 
internationally recognized expert." We note that the Hunarmand letterhead on this document, which does 
not mention the Petitioner, is visibly different from the letterhead on other correspondence attributed to 
3 
I 
Hunarmand officials. All versions of the letterhead in the record refer to Hunarmand's regional office in 
Irather than the organization at a national level. 
The Petitioner does not address the other issues raised by the Director, discussed above. It is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in 
support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
We agree with the Director that discrepancies and omissions in the record lead to the conclusion that the 
Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that Hunarmand requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner stated that he "often represented the country at international contests and exhibitions," 
where he won "a lot of international awards." In this introductory statement, the Petitioner did not identify 
any specific prizes or awards. 
A letter attributed to the director of the Uzbekistan, 
stated that the Petitioner "took part in the contest! - 2015,' where he took high places in the 
category 'Best Craftsman.'" The official did not claim to have been involved in that competition and did 
not establish that he had the authority to make attestations on behalf of its organizers. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of certificates acknowledging that the Petitioner participated in various 
exhibitions, but the Petitioner did not establish that the certificates, or participation itself, are nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or awards. Most of the participation certificates appear to be from 
municipal or regional officials. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown that the certificates amount to prizes or 
awards, or that they are nationally or internationally recognized. In response, the Petitioner stated that he 
"was on multiple occasions the recipient of national and international prizes, awards, and certifications." 
He asserted: 
Arguably the main source of his awards and certificates is the I IFestival in 
I Uzbekistan, which is widely known for its celebration ofthe region's rich history 
and vibrant culture .... 
. . . Winning a prize at the I IFestival is a rather significant achievement that 
brings with it several benefits including: national & international prestige and recognition, 
significant financial rewards ... , and widespread promotion and media exposure to the 
public and potential future clients and sponsors. 
4 
... The Beneficiary was one of two prime winners - out of almost 600 participants - of 
the festival in 2021, and was awarded by the President ofHunarmand 
for his achievements. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter attributed to "the director of the 'Hunarmand Association' ofl I 
city," whostated that the Petitioner "became the winner and laureate at the exhibition I 
and "he received as a gift from the President." This official stated that 
the Petitioner received! lin 2022, not 2021. The Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to 
establish the national or international recognition of prizes from the I I 
The official's letter included a photograph ofl Inext to an image of an English-language 
certificate awarded to the Petitioner "for active participation in the I I 
I Art Festival" inl Iin 2022. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
I_____ from 2022, indicating that 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the submitted materials do not establish that the Petitioner 
wonl las a prize or award. The Director also stated that a number of key assertions regarding the 
Petitioner's claimed prizes and awards lack the necessary corroboration. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that I Iis a "presidential prize." The Petitioner does not 
address the evidentiary deficiencies that the Director identified. Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice 
of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N 
Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). 
We agree with the Director's conclusion and observations. We add that the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence to show national or international recognition of prizes or awards offered at the 
Festival or other exhibitions in which he has participated. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner initially submitted three items intended to satisfy this criterion: 
• A translated Russian-language article from 2022, from a newspaper with a title that translates to 
The People's Word, calling the Petitioner "a famous young representative" of a "family dynasty" 
that has created jewelry inl for four generations; 
• An undated brochure in Russian and English, with the title Jewelry art of which includes 
photographs of the Petitioner and which incorporates, without attribution, the entire text that 
appeared in the People's Word article; and 
5 
• An undated, translated Russian-language article with the title from 
an unidentified website, describing a jewelry exhibition with particular attention to the Petitioner 
and his work. 
None of the articles include the required author credits, and only the first article is from an identified 
publication. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the submitted materials do not meet the regulatory requirements, and 
that the Petitioner had not shown that any of the materials appeared in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. The Director requested circulation data and other information to show 
that the materials meet the regulatory requirements. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a name for the author of the People's Word article, but that name 
does not appear to be present on the Russian-language article reproduced in the record. The Petitioner 
stated that The People's Word "is one of the most famous newspapers in Uzbekistan" with a circulation 
of "about 50,000 copies." The Petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate these assertions. The 
Petitioner submitted a printout from Wikipedia, which called The People's Word a government-run 
"Russian-language newspaper published from Uzbekistan," but provided no other information about the 
paper, or its circulation. 
The Petitioner also referred to _________ as a "famous article," but did not say where 
it was published, who wrote it, or how the article is "famous." 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that information from user-edited sites such as Wikipedia lack 
probative value because there is no assurance about its reliability. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 
910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Even then, the Wikipedia article did not corroborate any of the Petitioner's 
specific claims about The People's Word. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats prior claims, and now asserts that The People's Word has a circulation 
of 60,000 copies. The Petitioner states: "An article in 'People's Word' of Tashkent about a talented 
jeweler from lwould be a considerable honor within Uzbekistan" because "'People's Word' is a 
well-established newspaper in the capital city. Having his work featured there would put [him] in front 
of a large audience and establish his reputation within Uzbekistan." As noted above, statements in a brief 
or notice of appeal are not evidence and have no evidentiary weight. The Petitioner has not overcome the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner has not shown that the published material meets the regulatory 
requirements. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he has been the subject of published material 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
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). 
The Petitioner did not initially claim to have satisfied this criterion. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
established that he had written a book called ______________ Web printouts 
indicate that the book is available for download from Academia and Library Genesis, and they identify 
6 
the book's publisher as BookBaby. The book includes a history ofjewelry inl !photographs and 
descriptions of types of such jewelry, and information about materials and how they are shaped into 
traditional jewelry. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the book's publication date occurred after the issuance of the 
RFE, and noted that BookBaby is a "distribution network for self-published authors." The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary's self-published book is not a scholarly article for a learned audience, but 
rather it provides more basic information for a general readership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "While [his] book may not be published through traditional academic 
channels, it is demonstrably accessible to the relevant scholarly community." 
We note that the printouts from the websites offering downloads of the Petitioner's book show the 
publication date as 2021. The 2023 date that the Director noted appears to be the date it became available 
on Library Genesis. 
But the larger issue is that the Petitioner has not shown that his book is a scholarly article published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. A scholarly article should be written for 
learned persons in a particular field. "Learned" is defined as "having profound knowledge gained by 
study." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. In 
evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication or major media, relevant factors 
include the intended audience ( for professional journals) and the circulation or readership relative to other 
media in the field (for major media). Id. 
The Petitioner refers to "the relevant scholarly community," but does not explain what that community 
is. The tone and apparent reading level change from section to section. Some parts of the book include 
detailed instructions that presume the reader's familiarity with metalworking, but other parts are at a much 
more introductory level, for instance explaining the difference between brass and bronze. Some of the 
text appears to be promotional in nature, such as passages that read "our experienced craftsmen create 
unique and exquisite chains by hand" and "[i]t is the amazing speed of production that allows us to meet 
the needs of our customers." 
The Petitioner acknowledges that his book has not been published in the traditional sense. The petitioner 
has not shown or claimed that his self-published book appeared in a professional journal. The Petitioner 
has not provided download, circulation, or readership statistics to establish that his book is a major trade 
publication or other major media. A self-published book submitted without this information does not 
satisfy the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Initially, the Petitioner stated that he "presents his work at national and international conferences, 
exhibitions and competitions," but did not directly claim to satisfy the criterion relating to display. 
7 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence to "indicate that the 
beneficiary created any work that was displayed at any venue." In response, the Petitioner stated that he 
"meets the following criteria"; the four he listed did not include display. 
In the denial notice, the Director noted that the Petitioner's response to the RFE included "no further 
claims nor any additional evidence ... to address this criterion." The Director concluded that the record 
does not contain "objective documentation that the beneficiary displayed their work at any artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he has submitted "evidence of [his] work being displayed at various 
artistic exhibitions." The Petitioner does not describe this evidence in any detail or explain how it satisfies 
the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner has submitted copies of several certificates indicating that he participated in cultural 
festivals and an "exhibition of industrial products," but the certificates do not describe the nature of the 
participation. Therefore, the certificates are not sufficient evidence that the Petitioner displayed his work. 
Also, evidence of public display is not sufficient. The Petitioner must establish that the venues where his 
work was displayed were artistic exhibitions or showcases. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner's initial filing was ambiguous with regard to this criterion. When the Director gave the 
Petitioner an opportunity to clarify and supplement the record, specifically raising the issue in the RFE, 
the Petitioner's response did not include any direct claim to have satisfied the display criterion. Where, 
as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). 
We conclude that the Director did not err in determining that the Petitioner had not met his burden of 
proof with respect to display of his work at artistic displays or exhibitions. 
The Petitioner's appellate brief includes assertions about several other regulatory criteria that the 
Petitioner did not claim when he first filed the petition or in response to the RFE. The Petitioner quotes 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), pertaining to evidence that the individual has commanded a 
high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. He also 
claims a "critical role as a judge in the I I Exhibition." This language may refer to participation as 
a judge ofthe work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) or a leading or critical role for distinguished 
organizations or establishments under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Raising these new claims for the first time on appeal does not identify any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the Director's decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Furthermore, the 
new materials submitted on appeal do not establish eligibility. The Petitioner submitted figures for his 
claimed earnings in Uzbekistan, and salary surveys for jewelers in the United States, but this information 
does not show that he earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to other 
8 
jewelers in Uzbekistan. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(1 ), which indicates that 
we consider salary figures relevant to the applicable work location. 
A newly submitted letter, indicating that the Petitioner served as a judge at a craft exhibition in 2019, 
relates to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Detailed discussion of this evidence would not change the outcome 
of the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least two other initial criteria. 1 
It is significant that, in response to the RFE and again on appeal, the Petitioner made new claims, asserting 
that they are of particular significance, but not explaining why he did not include this important 
information when he initially filed the petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has submitted information indicating that he is a respected 
jeweler inl Ibut the evidence in the record does not consistently and credibly show that he has 
earned a degree ofrecognition of his work that indicates the required sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates 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. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9