dismissed EB-1A Case: Lacquer Art

identifyicg &IIG deleted to 
pre~~crit c!ez!y ur?~vmanted 
ixmsicn of ;xr;i.nal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 03 022 51855 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A$ 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
'John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
Service Center on February 4,2005. The director reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion, and 
denied the petition again on June 22, 2005. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that she qualifies 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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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@)(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 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This ~etition. filed on October 15. 2002. seeks to classifv the ~etitioner as an alien with 
extraoidin&ability as a lacquer artist. ~hebetitioner submittei a ~une 12, 2002 letter from 
Executive Director, Chinese Community Television Network, New York, stating: 
 m 
We . . . arrange television shows and programs about Chinese News, community events and 
cultural lectures every weekend at our Chinese Community Television Network (Channel 35 
in New York area). [The petitioner] has been employed as our artistic director for the 
graphic arts and stage design since August 2000. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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 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 theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A May 10, 1986 certificate issued by the Arts and Crafts General Corporation of the 
Ministry of Light Industry and the Quality Control Association for Lacquer Ware of 
China stating: "This certificate is issued to testify that the art work, entitled 'Water 
Country' by [the petitioner], and has won Award of 
Excellent Work at 1986 Chinese Lacquer Painting Exhibition." 
2. A December 29, 2000 "Certificate of Award" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Golden Award of in [sic] Lacquer painting in the Millennium." 
3. A May 2002 "Certificate of Award" presented to the petitioner stating: "It is certified 
that you have been awarded the outstanding artist in Lacquer painting of China in 2002 
for you have made great achievements in the art creating [sic] and international art 
exchange." 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
from the foreign language into English. 
 The English language translations accompanying the 
preceding certificates were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation. Further, with 
regard to items 2 and 3, the record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the 
significance of these awards. 
Regarding item 1, the petitioner's response to the director's notice of intent to deny included a June 
3, 2005 letter of support from 
 Manager of Cultural Department, Chinese American 
Association of the United States of America, stating: 
I am writing to provide background information regarding the "Excellent Award" which was 
conferred upon [the petitioner] in 1986 by the committee of the first National Lacquer 
Paintings Exhibition. 
This Exhibition was sponsored by the Ministry of Culture of China and issued awards for 
five types including the Encouraging Prize, 3rd Prize, 2nd Prize, lst Prize and Excellent Prize. 
The Excellent Prize is the highest award among them and only five this kind of award issued 
at the Exhibition [sic]. 
We note that 
 is not from the organizations that issued the award. Further, the record lacks 
supporting evidence establishing the significance and magnitude of the preceding competitive 
exhibition. Nor is there information from the presenting organizations indicating the selection 
criteria for award recipients. On appeal, the petitioner submits newspaper articles from May 1986 
discussing the 1" China Lacquer Painting Exhibition, but these articles were not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted a March 1, 2002 "Award Notice" from the World Peace Award Art 
Competition Committee, University of Houston, stating: "You are one of the award recipients for 
the First World Peace Award Competition! . . . We have received more than 1000 pieces works [sic] 
fi-om all over the world, such as the United States, Canada, France, Italy, China, Japan, etc." The 
petitioner also submitted an award ceremony invitation, an "Outstanding Award" certificate, and 
program material reflecting that the exhibition and award ceremony occurred in May 2002. The 
petitioner's evidence also included a March 16, 2005 letter fro d. Co-Chairman of the 
World Peace Award Art Competition Committee, Asian Amencan Stu ies Center, University of 
Houston, stating: 
In 2001 [the petitioner] participated the [sic] lSt World Peace Award Art Competition co- 
sponsored by the University of Houston, World Art Center and Dalian Art Collage [sic], and 
won the outstanding prize (only five of this kind prizes [sic] presented among the 8700 
participated [sic]) by her wonderful lacquer painting. 
Contrary to the statement in the letter from 
 indicating that the first World Peace 
Award Art Competition occurred in 2001, the petitioner's Award Notice, "Outstanding Award" 
certificate, and other supporting documentation reflect that it occurred in 2002. 
 Further, the 
documents submitted by the petitioner provide different information regarding the number of 
Page 5 
entrants. 
 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. Id. at 591. 
With regard to the awards submitted by the petitioner, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5@)(3)(i) specifically requires that her awards be nationally or internationally recognized and it is 
her burden to establish every element of this regulatory criterion. In this case, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence showing that the preceding awards commanded significant recognition beyond 
the presenting organizations consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, there is no evidence of national press coverage surrounding the petitioner's receipt of the 
preceding awards or other evidence showing that they have a substantial level of recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted "Certificate[s] of Exhibitor" from the 1980s reflecting that her paintings 
qualified for exhibition at the Chinese Lacquer Painting Exhibition, the Exhibition of Suzhou Municipal 
Arts and Crafts, and the Cultural Event Series of the Suzhou Municipality. The English language 
translations accompanying these certificates were not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing that these certificates are 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence, rather than simply an 
acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in the exhibitions. 
On motion, the petitioner submitted a September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award from the World Art 
Center and a December 2003 Certificate of Recognition from the American Education and Cultural 
Foundation of Hpuston, Texas. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner 
submitted a May 2003 newsletter from the South Bay Art Association (SBAA) of Bellport, New 
York indicating that her painting "A Girl" won 2nd Place in the Pastel category at the SBAA's 46th 
Annual Member's Show. The record also includes a certificate stating that the petitioner won a 
Silver Prize in the 4th International Golden Swan Art Competition in 2003. The petitioner received 
the preceding honors subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these awards in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the preceding honors are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication 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 regulatory 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 satis@ this criterion 
as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, 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 evidence of her membership in the Artists' Association of Suzhou and the 
South Bay Art Association of New York. The record does not include supporting evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that these associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the petitioner's field or an allied one. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that she 
was appointed as a council member of the World Culture Alliance (WCA) in July 2005 and as a 
member of the National Art League (NAL) in October 2003. The petitioner's membership in the 
WCA and the NAL commenced subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed, a petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these memberships in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that they require outstanding achievements of their 
members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an 
allied one. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classijication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, 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 level fi-om a local publication or fi-om a 
publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. 
Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualiQ 
as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted two pages from a book entitled Complete Works of Modern Chinese Arts 
(1998). This book includes the artistic creations of hundreds of artists. On pages 50 and 178, there 
is a photograph of a "Lacquer Rubbed Wood Tray" made by the petitioner and a brief description. 
The petitioner has not established that this book, or any significant portion of it, is about her. 
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, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
Further, the English language translation accompanying this material was not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Finally, there is no evidence (such as 
number of copies sold) showing that this publication qualifies as a major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
On motion, the petitioner submitted a February 28, 2005 letter from the Editor-in-Chief of Hong 
Kong Celebrity Publishing Limited stating that an album of the petitioner's paintings "is scheduled 
to publish in October 2005." On appeal, the petitioner submits a July 12, 2005 article about her in 
the Queens Chronicle and a July 17, 2005 article in The Trentonian about the opening of her art 
studio in the Quaker Bridge Mall. The petitioner also submits an advertisement for her studio in the 
"Special Advertising Section" of the July 14, 2005 issue of the The Trentonian. The preceding 
materials were published subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these materials in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the unpublished album, the local newspaper articles, and the 
local advertisement meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of specijication for which classijcation is 
sought. 
On motion, the petitioner submitted a Certificate of Appointment stating that she was chosen as a 
member of the judging committee for the "lSt International Disable Artists Art Competition" in 
November 2004. The petitioner's involvement with this competition occurred subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will 
not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, such evidence would be insufficient 
because the record contains no evidence showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, the 
names of those she evaluated, their level of art expertise, and documentation of her assessments. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzjk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several reference letters praising her talent as a 
lacquer artist. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of artistic contributions of 
major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original 
contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted her field. 
Page 8 
[The petitioner] has been an artist of lacquer paintin for many years. In the past, she studied 
in Sichuan Art School under the tutorship of president and well-known 
lacquer expert in China, and scored excellent results. Not only has she gained a solid 
foundation in traditional lacquer art, but proved herself to be creative. She was warmly 
appreciated by the teachers. 
In 1984, she entered Central Institute of Arts & Crafts through examination and studied the 
art of lacquer painting under my training. She was intelligent, inquisitive, hardworking, and 
perceptive to the art, and achieved a lot more than her classmates. Her interpretation of the 
art is convincing to the connoisseurs. On the basis of the fundamental knowledge of 
traditional lacquer art, she made a point to develop the painting expressions of the lacquer 
art, and therefore uplifted the lacquer art to the realm of modern aesthetics. She was indeed 
outstanding among those I have taught. 
In 1987, [the petitioner] worked as my assistant in the project of large-scale lacquer mural of 
Shijiazhuang Railway Station, during which her talent in lacquer painting was given full 
play. Her outstanding performance and skills left us a deep impression. Besides, her 
management expertise and coordinating capability on the spot helped a great deal in 
completing this project. 
To have better grasp of the development trend of modern lacquer art, [the petitioner] entered 
the reputed Arts & Crafts University of Kanazawa. Ja~an. to studv the techniaues of modem 
lacquer art. There, she had the opportunity to lek &om 
 famous Japanese 
lacquer expert, a good luck not only for herself, but also a pride for the Chinese lacquer 
artists. she 
 in various exhibitions in Japan and displayed her own works, which 
represented her unique style by integrating the characteristics of Chinese and Japanese 
lacquer art and by combining the traditional lacquer art with modem aesthetics. She achieved 
creative and original results. 
Since her graduation abroad, she has been devoted to the promotion of Chinese lacquer art, 
often shuttling between China, Japan, and Korea for cultural exchanges in the art of lacquer 
ware. And from time to time she came out with new and creative works of her own. 
-1 professor, Kanazawa Arts and Crafts University, states: 
 "The petitioner was 
an international student of Kanazawa Arts & Crafts University, specializing in lacquer-art from 1993 
to 1994. . . . During that period of two years, she made amazing progress in her major." 
Artist and Visiting Professor, University of Houston, states: "I found [the 
petitioner's] art is fundamentally solid. And her lacquer paintings are especially astonishing." 
Professor in the Arts, Central University for Nationalities, states: [The petitioner] is 
a lacquer painting artist with unique creativity. She has been working assiduously in the lacquer 
painting world, attempting to discover a way to express her ideal. . . . [The petitioner] is progressing 
in her own way. She has a rich potentiality of creation." 
, Director of International Exchange Department, U.S. Education, Science and 
Cultural Foundation, states: 
 "[The petitioner] has demonstrated excellence in art and lacquer 
paintings. There is no doubt in my mind that [the petitioner] by experience and training, has 
sufficient qualification to be considered a highly accomplished artist in lacquer painting." 
I am mostly impressed by [the petitioner's] traditional lacquer techniques, the delicateness 
that conveys special oriental aestheticism. The execution of the stroke, itself, is varied, 
sensitive and revealing. I have no doubt that [the petitioner's] artistic expertise will greatly 
benefit our contemporary arts in a beautiful way. 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them they discuss what will someday result from the 
petitioner's work rather than how her past achievements already qualify as original contributions of 
major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on 
the expectation of future eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Corntnr. 
1971). The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification intended for aliens already at the 
top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some 
unspecified future time. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
, a water color artist, East Side Art Center, states: 
As far as my experience in watercolor painting is concerned, I am certain that [the petitioner] 
is an exceptional artist in China. Her techniques at lacquer sculpturing are mature as well as 
precise, showing the tradition of and beauty of human life and perfectly adding elements of 
Eastern aestheticism and cultural inner strength. 
It is apparent that her works are different from the style of Western Classicism and 
naturalism artistry, her unique style represents nature itself, and because she is [sic] talented 
designer of lacquer art forms, they have naturally absorbed the oriental essences. 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that her artistic achievements constitute 
original contributions of major significance in contemporary art. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the petitioner's artwork has earned the admiration of those 
providing letters of recommendation, there is nothing to demonstrate that her work has had major 
significance in the field at large. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other artists nationally or internationally nor does it show that the field has 
somehow changed as a result of her work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
 Id. 
 The submission of letters of support from the 
petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the 
content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an artist who has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout her 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a 14-page publication that she identifies as her book entitled My passion for 
the Art of Lacquer Painting (2000). The English language translation accompanying this glossy 
paperback was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). 
Further, the petitioner has not established that her book is a major art publication. For example, 
there is no evidence showing the number of copies of ths book in print, that the book had substantial 
national or international readership, or that the book was ofhenvise circulated in a manner consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the jeld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted "Certificate[s] of Exhibitor" fiom the 1980s reflecting that her paintings 
qualified for exhibition at the Chinese Lacquer Painting Exhibition, the Exhibition of Suzhou 
Municipal Arts and Crafts, and the Cultural Event Series of the Suzhou Municipality. The English 
language translations accompanying these certificates were not certified by the translator as required 
by the regulation 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that two of 
her paintings were displayed among hundreds of others in the Ishikawa International Urushi Design 
Exhibition in 1996. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence showing that she has operated an art 
booth at Neshaminy Mall since May 2004 and opened an art gallery and studio in the Quaker Bridge 
Mall in 2005. The petitioner's work was displayed in these shopping malls subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will 
not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
With regard to the galleries, exhibitions, and competitions in which the petitioner's works were 
shown, it must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for her 
work to be displayed. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that her 
paintings have been displayed at significant artistic venues consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of her field. For example, there is no indication that the 
petitioner's works have consistently been featured along side those of artists who enjoy national or 
international reputations, that she has regularly participated in shows or exhibitions at significant 
venues devoted primarily to the display of her work alone, or that renowned art museums have 
displayed her work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a March 25,2005 Certificate of Appraisal from the "U.S. Academy 
of Science for World Celebrity" stating that her painting "Playing Fishes" has an appraised value of 
$13,500. There is no evidence showing that the painting actually sold for that amount. The 
petitioner also submits her U.S. income tax returns reflecting that she had business income of 
$1 9,926 in 2003 and $16,842 in 2004. The petitioner's appellate submission also includes a 
"Statement of Income for the six months ended June 30, 2005" reflecting that her businesses at the 
Neshaminy Mall and the Quaker Bridge Mall had a combined net income of $7,483. The petitioner 
earned this income and was issued her appraisal certificate subsequent to the petition's filing date. 
As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2@)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing that she has commanded a high salary 
"in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that her 
compensation was significantly high in relation to others in her field. There is no indication that the 
petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places her among the highest paid artists in the United 
States or China. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203@)(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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.