dismissed EB-1A Case: Miniature Art Painting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4899488 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT. 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a painter of miniature art, 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 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. 
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 )(1 )(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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a painter, specializing in "traditionall I miniature painting." The Petitioner states: 
"For more than a decade, I have worked in my workshop ... atl I old city market." He entered 
the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in December 2016, and filed the immigrant petition 
in October 2017. 
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), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria, relating to prizes and to 
artistic display. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other four claimed evidentiary 
criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied 
only one criterion, relating to artistic display. We will discuss the other five claimed criteria below. 
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) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's evidence satisfies this criterion. We disagree. 
2 
Translated photoco rize certificates indicate that the Petitioner won an award for "Traditional 
Hand Craft" at the Re ublican Youth Com etition in I ] 2011, and two 
awards at the.__ ____________________ ____. inl._ ___ _.!a "Silver Award" 
in 2013 and "Third Prize" in 2015. 
The only background information the Petitioner submitted regarding the I I competition 
is a United Nations report which cited the competition as one of several "undertaking[ s] to condemn racial 
discrimination." The report also indicated that the competition is "for talented youth aged 15-25 ," thereby 
excluding the most experienced artists from participation; the report indicates that the competition prizes 
consist, at least in part, of academic scholarships. 
The Petitioner also submitted two promotional articles about the expos1t10ns inl This 
background information does not mention any prizes or establish that those prizes are nationally or 
internationally recognized. International participation in an event is not the same as international 
recognition of awards from that event. 
The submitted materials do not show that the awarding of the prizes attracts any significant notice, either 
among the public or among others working in the field. The Petitioner has not established the national or 
international recognition of the prizes and awards discussed above. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
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) 
A ied membershi card indicates that the Petitioner holds the osition of "Master" with 
'---------------------------.-~---------' City Administration." A 
letter attributed to the head of '---------~ Regional Administration reads, in part: 
'I !Association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or 
internationally recognized experts in the respective field [sic] of Folk Art or Craftsmanship," and that the 
Petitioner's "membership was based on his outstanding achievements in the field of traditional I I 
miniature art painting." 
A letter attributed to the chief executive officer CEO of reads, in part: "In accordance with 
the article 5.4 of the Charter of~---------~' admission to the Association is granted based 
on the recommendation of Art Experts Council composed solely of nationally or internationally 
recognized experts." The letter also indicates that two "internationally recognized expert[s]" 
recommended the Petitioner for membership. The Petitioner submits letters attributed to those two named 
artists. The letters are nearly identical, both stating that the artists "recommended [ the Petitioner's] 
admission tol I based on his outstanding achievements in the field of traditional 
I I miniature art," and that those achievements "fully comply with the requirements of ... article 5.4 
of the Charter." 
3 
The submitted letters do not provide any information about the Petitioner's achievements or explain 
why they are outstanding. It cannot suffice simply to assert that membership inl !requires 
outstanding achievements. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the Petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). The letters refer to article 5.4 ofl l's Charter, but the Petitioner does not submit a 
copy of the Charter itself Third-party assertions as to what the Charter says cannot carry the same weight. 
Furthermore, the similarities in the letters suggest that the language in the letters is not the authors' own. 
Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an 
immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in part on the 
similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. 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). 
A second letter attributed to thel ts CEO describes organization's purpose and activities, 
but does not discuss how it selects its members. This second letter indicates that I I has 
15,000 members, a size that does not readily suggest highly selective membership requirements. 
Also, we note that the Petitioner's identification card was issued not by the national organization, but 
by a regional authority inl !consistent with the conclusion that membership is determined at 
the regional level, rather than the national or international level. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not shown that his involvement with 
I !constitutes membership in an association that requires require outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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) 
The Petitioner submits translated copies of articles attributed to the magazine JannatMakon (2011 ), and 
the newspapers Buxoro Oqshomi (2015) and Buxoroi Sharif (2017). The Petitioner asserts that each of 
these publications constitutes major media with national circulation i~ I 
The JannatMakon piece consists of two paragraphs written by, rather than about, the Petitioner. He 
mentions his teacher, but most of what he wrote is about the traditional art form of miniature painting. 
Therefore, this article is not published material about the Petitioner. 
Letters attributed to the "main editors" of the two newspapers attest to the circulation of the newspapers, 
but the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to corroborate those 
circulation figures. Beyond this valid observation, however, the figures themselves do not appear to be 
consistent with major media. The letters indicate that Buxoroi Sharif prints "around ... 500" copies per 
4 
week, while Buxoro Oqshomi prints "around 1150." Both papers have websites, for which the Petitioner 
did not provide readership statistics. 
The Petitioner also submitted printouts of screen captures from Y ouTube videos, most of them on his 
own channel. 1 The Petitioner did not submit transcripts to establish the content of the videos. While 
websites such as Y ouTube have the potential to reach a large audience, the Petitioner does not show that 
his channel has done so. View counts on the printouts show that his most-viewed video had accumulated 
66 views since September 2016. The other videos had between 22 and 40 views each. 
An interview with the Petitioner appeared on the Y ouTube channel of.__ _______ .....,..... A printed 
screen capture of that page showed 31 views as of August 28, 2018. 2 This view count does not indicate 
that the Petitioner and his work have attracted significant attention, and the Petitioner has not shown that 
the channel constitutes major media. In any event, this video was not published until July 28, 2018, after 
the Director had issued a request for evidence; therefore, this video cannot establish eligibility as of the 
petition's October 2017 filing date, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown that the submitted materials meet the regulatory 
requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "provided no basis for the rejection of 
credible, clear and convincing evidence," but the Petitioner does not identify that evidence or show how 
it was as definitive as the Petitioner claims on appeal. The burden of proof resides with the Petitioner to 
establish eligibility, not with the Director to rebut the Petitioner's evidence and unsubstantiated claims. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this regulation, a petitioner must not only establish original contributions, but also that 
they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the 
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Petitioner states that he "made an original contribution of major significance to the field of traditional 
I !miniature painting by virtue of reviving ancient style and using narratives from classical Oriental 
literature," and by painting "classical subjects" such as "the works of famous I I folk poets and 
writers." Letters from various individuals also refer to these themes of revival of an ancient folk art form, 
and inspiration from literary sources. 
An "ancient style" is, by definition, not original. Reviving a classical technique using classical themes 
does not readily suggest originality. One of the letters contains two contradictory assertions in the same 
1 A search ofhttps://www.youtube.com on October 1, 2020, indicated that the Petitioner's channel no longer exists, and 
the videos on that channel are no longer available. 
2 The view count of this video (at https://www.youtube.com .__ ________ ~as of October 1, 2020. 
5 
sentence, indicating that the Petitioner has "his own unique style" but revived the "style of [a] great old 
master." 
Also, the submitted letters do not include an explanation as to how the Petitioner's choice of themes 
differs from that of other painters of miniatures. Another painter described in the record draws inspiration 
from "oral traditions of Central Asia," while the work of a third "shows scenes from daily life in ... 
ancient times." These themes do not appear to differ significantly from the "classical subjects" that the 
Petitioner favors. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted several letters that do not identify any 
specific contributions, and are worded, at times, in the manner of employee recommendation letters, 
although they purport to describe his achievements as a student. A letter attributed to the CEO of Youth 
Unity ofl I indicates that the Petitioner "served as an engine of motivation, inspiring his co­
workers to reach new levels in their work," and "demonstrated good teamwork skills in group 
assignments." 
An artist identified as the Petitioner's "tutor in painting miniature" at the Academy of Arts~I ----~ 
asserts: "During his time here, we saw sales of miniature [sic] increased threefold." The record does not 
otherwise indicate that the Academy sells paintings. The remainder of the letter consists of general praise 
for the Petitioner, without identifying any specific contributions or explanation of their significance. 
Another letter, also on Academy letterhead, is attributed to an individual who states his title as "Chairman 
of the Association," but does not specify the name of the association. The "Chairman's" letter contains 
several references that have no apparent relevance to art students, such references to clients and 
customers, and the assertion that the Petitioner "is clearly able to transmit his passion and talent for 
research to young scientists." 
In denying the petition, the Director stated: "While it is clear that there is value in 'reviving' or 
'preserving' an existing art form it is not sufficient to demonstrate an original contribution." The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner had not shown that his work has had an impact on that of other artists. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his "mastery of traditional! I miniature art was recognized as a 
contribution of major significance to the field by leading experts in this field," and that the Director 
arbitrarily refused to consider "unchallenged expert testimony." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
regulatory language: 
requires evidence of the alien's original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The regulation does not require contributions of major significance to the field. This is a 
subtle yet significant difference as the regulation requires an important contribution 
related to the field, rather than a contribution that dramatically impacts the field. 
The Petitioner's interpretation of the regulations is not controlling. Furthermore, several of the letters 
upon which the Petitioner relies do refer to "contributions of major significance to the field." It remains 
that skill in an existing, traditional technique is not inherently original. 
G 
The Petitioner's claim that these letters represent "unchallenged expert testimony" does not account for 
anomalies such as shared language and unexplained references to "customers" and "young scientists." 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 I&N Dec. 376 (quoting Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 
(Comm'r 1989)). The anomalies in the quoted letters raise serious questions about the origin of those 
letters, which diminish their evidentiary weight. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that he made original contributions 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Petitioner did not initiall claim to have satisfied this criterion, but he later submitted a 50-page 
printout of which identifies the Petitioner as its sole author and indicates 
that ..._ __ _. Publishing house" (the last word is lowercase in the original) published the book in 2016, 
with an update in 2018. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter formatted as a "review" of a book by the Petitioner called.I._ __ __, 
, said to have been published in 2016. The record does not .__ ________________ __, 
contain the book itself or first-hand evidence of its publication or existence. 
The regulatory language refers specifically to "articles." Nevertheless, on appeal, the Petitioner states: 
"It is absurd and unreasonable for the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] to claim that 
only articles may be relied upon to satisfy this criterion, while books and treatises may not." The Director, 
however, did not raise any such objection, and in fact the Director consistently referred to the written 
material as an "article." 
The Director's objection was that the article was not "written in a scholarly manner." The Petitioner 
argues, on appeal, that "[t]he book here was clearly ... of [a] learned and scholarly nature." A USCIS 
policy memorandum states: 
As defined in the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, 
experimentation, or philosophical discourse. It is written by a researcher or expert in the 
field who is often affiliated with a college, university, or research institution. In general, 
it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, 
videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. 
For other fields, 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 
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 ADJ 1-14, 9 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
http://www. uscis. gov /legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
7 
,__ _________ ___, generally has the traits of writing for a popular rather than scholarly 
audience. Furthermore, scholarly articles are subject to peer review and editorial scrutiny, which help to 
ensure the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the articles. The Petitioner has not shown that his book 
was held to comparably rigorous standards. 
Also, the Petitioner has not established that his books constitute professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, as the regulations require. Publication, by itself: does not satisfy the regulatory 
requirements. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
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 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. Much of the 
Petitioner's evidence indicates his work has attracted only peripheral attention. Letters referring to 
the Petitioner as a major figure in his field raise concerns, for reasons already explained. The Petitioner 
has not shown established 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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