dismissed EB-1A Case: Miniature Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 29, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a miniaturist, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief, arguing that he fulfills at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 m 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 
Matter of M-K-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has exhibited his artwork in Asia and the United States. Because he 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). As 
indicated above, the Petitioner has exhibited his work at artistic exhibitions and showcases. 
Accordingly, we concur with the Director's finding for the display criterion. However, for the reasons 
discussed below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for the 
awards criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills four additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion without identifying the qualifying 
award( s) and explaining his determination. In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized 
2 
Matter of M-K-
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for 
granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria 
used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in 
the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we will withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
The Petitioner indicated that he "was awarded [the JI 
~--------~ Award of Excellence f.._or--,-1 ----,-1 i_n_2_0_1_4 __ -T-he-re_c_o-rd-r-ef-le_c_t_s -th_a__,t 
the Petitioner initially submitted a certificate from the .__ _________ ___, showing that he 
received the "Award of Excellence forl 1, r reslonse to the director's request for evidence 
(RFE), he provided the history and objectives of 3 Moreover, the Petitioner provided a 
"Memorandum of Understanding" between I dtating that "the Award of Excellence 
for I ![became] an international initiative led by under the patronage of I I" 
As it relates to the "Award of Excellence," the Petitioner presented documentation of the evaluation 
criteria and supporting documentation showing that artwork is judged based on excellence, 
authenticity, innovation, and marketability. 4 
While the Petitioner submitted background information regarding I I including the relationship 
with I I and the "Award of Excellence ofl t' he did not explain how the evidence 
establishes the national or international recognition of the award in the field. Here, the Petitioner did 
not show the national or international significance of the award in the field beyond I I such as 
national or international media reports. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the issuance 
of numerous awards is indicative of an award "for excellence in the field of endeavor" consistent with 
this regulatory criterion. For instance, in 2012, "[t]hel !Award of Excellence forl I 
has been granted to 80 craft products from a total 189 entries in the South and South-East Asian 
subregions." 5 In this case, almost half of all entries received the "Award of Excellence." 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that he "was named as the Best Show Finalist of the._l ____ _. 
' in 2015. Initially, he provided a certificate from the 56th International Art '------------;=L------~ Exhibition at the .__ _____ _. 2015 reflecting the Petitioner's "recognition of artistic 
accomplishment and selection as Best Show - Finalist." In response to the Director's RFE, he 
submitted screenshots about the '! I 2015," including a presentation by artist I I I I at the exhibition. Here, the evidence relates to the exhibition and I I In fact, the 
screenshots make no mention of the Petitioner or the certificate he received. Furthermore, the 
1 See 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 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
3 For instance, "[t]he main objectives ofD is to ensure the status in each country of the Asia Pacific Region as a vital 
part of the cultural scenario by developing and strengthening it," including "[t]o promote, develop, maintain, strengthen 
and ensure status otBs an important medium of aitistic expression." 
4 In addition. "[t]he 'Award of Excellence forl I' aims to promotf quality~ that upholds rigorous 
standards of excellence" and "encourages product innovation in order to ensure that~---~remain relevant, valuable, 
and marketable in modem life." 
5 See https://culture360.asef.org, incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
3 
Matter of M-K-
Petitioner did not establish that rece1vmg a "Finalist" certificate represents a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claimed that he "won the third place at the International I I and 
,___ _ ___,I ExQo in I 7 China" in 2016. He initially presented a "Certificate of Honor" for third 
prize at the I !hiternational I I Expo. In response to the 
Director's RFE, he submitted an article from chinadaily.com.cn mentioning the 2016 exposition. In 
addition, he provided screenshots from an unidentified website relating to the exhibition's regulations. 
Again, the Petitioner's evidence relates to the exhibition without demonstrating that its bestowed 
prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not establish that third place is tantamount to a prize or award "for excellence." 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for 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). 
The Petitioner argues that he "is a current and full member of.__ _____________ __, 
'-----------~ of the Republic of Uzbekistan." In order to satisfy this criterion, the 
Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized 
national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 6 
The record reflects that the Petitioner presented a certificate demonstrating his membership with 
I I In addition, the Petitioner provided a letter from I l chairman of thd I 
Regional Department of I I who claimed that the 'I I Association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized 
experts in the respective field of Folk Art or Craftsmanship," and "[t]he criteria for [the Petitioner's] 
level of membership in the association, which is full association membership, were demonstration of 
outstanding achievements in the field of folk art, in his case, traditional Uzbek miniature art painting, 
as judged by nationally recognized experts in the field of traditional Uzbek miniature art painting." 
HereJ I repeats the languare of the regulations without pointing to any governing authority 
establishing that membership with I requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990);Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Further, the Petitioner did not submit any supporting evidence, such as the 
~or other_ documentation, showing! Is membership requirements, to corroborate Mr. 
L___Js assert10ns. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
4 
Matter of M-K-
Moreover, he offered two letters froml l chief executive officer of I l 
who confirmed the Petitioner's membership and highlighted his artwork. Further, I I 
described the purpose and history of I I as well as the importance of craftsmen in the field. 
However, I I did not indicate the membership requirements for I I nor did he 
demonstrate that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for 
membership with the association. 
As such, the Petitioner did not show that he 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 field for which class[fication 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). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 7 The record contains an article from Bukhara Sharif reflecting published material about 
the Petitioner relating to his work in the field. However, the Petitioner did not establish that Bukhara 
Sharif qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The Petitioner 
submitted two letters from I l main editor, who described Bukhara Shar~f as "a weekly 
social - political newspaper" that "is published every Thursday with around of [sic] 500 print issues 
containing about 4-6 pages per each." Here, the Petitioner did not provide any independent, objective 
evidence showing the newspaper's standing as a major medium. USCIS need not rely on the self­
promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 
2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover a 
magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of a major medium). Further, the 
Petitioner did not show the significance of the "500" circulation figures or explain how such data 
reflects status as a major medium. 8 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his "mastery of traditional Uzbek miniature art was recognized as a 
contribution of major significance to the field by leading experts in this field." In order to meet the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 9 For example, a petitioner 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
5 
Matter of M-K-
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 in the field. 
The record reflects that he provided recommendation letters froml I and I.__ _____ _. 
who claimed that the Petitioner "has made an original contribution of major significance to the field 
of traditional Uzbek miniature art by virtue ofreviving this unique style and narratives in his miniature 
painting." However, neither individual provided detailed information explaining or justifying their 
opinions. Instead, the authors summarize the Petitioner's experience, highlight his exhibitions, and 
point to his individual accomplishments without showing how his artwork has significantly impacted 
or influenced his field. Moreover, repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 
905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted additional recommendation letters I I and .... l ___ __. 
who also commented on his career and experience without demonstrating how he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, the letters praise the Petitioner's skills and 
talents. For example, the Petitioner's "noteworthy skills as a designer of miniatures is his eye for color 
and his familiarity with the curves and nature of the culture" and "way of incorporating practicality 
with grandeur, a unique manner of mixing the modem designs with glamorous history-inspired 
pictures." However, having a diverse, unique, or special skill set is not a contribution of major 
significance in-and-of-itself Further, the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has 
already used those skills and talents to impact the field at a significant level, which he has not shown. 
Moreover, the letters do not demonstrate the Petitioner's impact in the overall field beyond the limited 
projects in which he exhibited or participated. 10 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying his original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence his artwork has had on the overall field. Letters 
that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and 
its impact on subsequent work add value. 11 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 12 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
12 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in palt 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
6 
Matter of M-K-
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 claims eligibility for this criterion based on his authorship of a book entitled,! I 
~----.-,........,,........,..------=----,,.---~I The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires his 
"authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." 13 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how an authorship of a book qualifies as a scholarly article in 
a professional or major trade publication of other major medium consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. Moreover, a scholarly article should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" 
is defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include 
all persons having profound knowledge of a field. 14 However, the Petitioner did not establish that his 
book is written for "learned" individuals and contain the characteristics of a scholarly article. 
Further, the Petitioner did not show that his book represents a professional or major trade publication 
or other major medium. The Petitioner, for instance, did not provide statistics or other evidence 
establishing the major standing of the book. 15 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills 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 finding 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. USCIS 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 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
13 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
14 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
15 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9 (providing that evidence of professional or major trade 
publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared 
to other circulation statistics and the intended audience). 
7 
Matter of M-K-
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-K-, ID# 4643262 (AAO Oct. 29, 2019) 
8