dismissed EB-1A Case: Mixed Media Art

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear1 y unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 3 2009 
LIN 07 174 51243 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
@@-- 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director determined 
that the petitioner met only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3),' of which an alien 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement supported by several non-precedent decisions by 
this office and additional evidence. While 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions 
are binding on all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. We will discuss the 
petitioner's assertions in detail below. For the reasons discussed below, while we concur with the 
petitioner that she also meets the display criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii), we uphold 
the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
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. 
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. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
1 
The director found that the petitioner meets the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
At the outset, we acknowledge that USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition 
filed on behalf of the petitioner. The prior approval, however, does not preclude USCIS from 
denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be 
noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant 
petitions. See e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. 
US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 
1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I- 129 nonimmigrant petitions 
than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS 
from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The regulatory requirements for an immigrant and non-immigrant alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts are dramatically different. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines extraordinary ability in the arts 
(including the performing arts) as simply "distinction," which is further defined as follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree 
of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that 
a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field 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." While the ten immigrant 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) appear in the nonimmigrant regulations, 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), they refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business or athletics. Rather, separate criteria for nonimrnigrant aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the arts are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). The 
distinction between these fields and the arts, which appears in 8 C.F.R. $214(0), does not appear in 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h). As such, the petitioner's approval for a non-immigrant visa under the lesser 
standard of "distinction" and using completely different regulatory criteria is not evidence of her 
eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant visa. Regardless, each petition must be adjudicated on its 
own merits under the regulations which apply to the benefit sought. Thus, the petitioner's eligibility 
will be evaluated under the ten regulatory criteria relating to the immigrant classification, discussed 
below. 
As stated above, the term "extraordinary ability" as it applies to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act 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(h)(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. tj 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 petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a mixed media 
artist. 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. 
As stated above, the director concluded that the petitioner meets the published materials criterion set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and we find that the record supports that finding. In addition, we 
find that the petitioner has demonstrated that her work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Specifically, the record contains evidence of the 
display of the petitioner's work at museums, galleries and film festivals in several cities in Germany, 
New York, Ohio, Russia and Indonesia. These displays go far beyond the typical displays necessary for 
any visual artist to sell her work and make a living in her field. The displays also extend far beyond the 
cities where the petitioner has resided. Thus, we are satisfied that they serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner, however, must demonstrate that she meets a third criterion in order to be eligible for the 
exclusive classification sought. For the reasons discussed below, however, the evidence falls far short 
of meeting the necessary third criterion. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets 
the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's awards were academic in nature and could not serve to 
meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that her award fiom the State Academy for 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
Fine Arts, Karlsruhe, was limited to other students at the academy, but asserts that her artist residencies, 
fellowships and certificate of participation should serve to meet this criterion. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a February 20, 2006 letter from - of 
Kommandantenhaus Dilsberg. The letter is in German and the petitioner did not submit a complete 
certified translation as required under 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Rather, a caption at the bottom of the 
letter states that it is a confirmation of the artist residency program in DilsbergIHeidelberg sponsored by 
the Cultural Foundation of the Rhine-Neckar Region, Germany. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted materials reflecting that the Cultural Foundation 
awards "2x2 grant awards per year" through the Board of Trustees. The grant "brings artists fiom all 
over the world to Dilsberg (2 Studios have been set up for this purpose in the Culture House)." On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the residency includes a Euro 1,200 monthly grant awarded to only 
two international visual artists per year. The petitioner further asserts that awardees are nominated for 
this residency and cites a non-precedent decision by this office noting that awardees selected from a 
pool of nominations have a more persuasive claim to meet this criterion than awardees who submit 
their work for consideration. 
As stated above, only decisions designated as precedents are binding. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c). Moreover, 
nothing in the non-precedent decision suggests that all awards for which the pool of competitors are 
nominated are presumed to meet this criterion. The petitioner submits a June 23,2008 letter from 
confirming that the petitioner was a resident in the fall of 2006, that the award is given to two 
international visual artists each year, that nominees are referred to the board of the Cultural Foundation 
through peers, gallery owners, museum directors, curators and other professionals and that the board 
makes its decision based on the applicant's excellence in the field. confirms the monthly 
stipend of Euro 1,200, free residence in a Culture House apartment, free studio space and a first class 
ticket for all regional public transportation. The petitioner has not established that the most 
experienced and renowned members of the field would find an offer of housing or a studio sufficient 
such that they would aspire to win this residency. Rather, such an offer appears designed for up-and- 
coming artists. Ultimately, while a review of the artist's past work is essential, the grant appears 
primarily designed to support fuhue work rather than recognize past work. We are not persuaded that 
this residency qualifies as an award or prize for excellence such that it can serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a 2001 German certificate fiom the Deutscher Akademischer 
Austauschidienst (DAAD or German Academic Exchange Service) with an uncertified translation. The 
uncertified translation indicates that the certificate from the DAAD granted a fellowship for the 
petitioner's continued education. The petitioner also provided English-language material fiom the 
DAAD's website promoting DAAD scholarship and grant alumni, including the petitioner. In response 
to the director's re uest for additional evidence, theetitioner submitted a ~e~tember 29, 2004-letter 
from A, Head of the North American Programs Section for DAAD, advising that 
the petitioner was awarded a fellowship from DAAD for the 200112002 academic year and that the 
DAAD "supports the specialist and personal qualification of outstanding German students, graduates 
and young, up-and-coming academics, scientists and artists." On appeal, the petitioner submits 
Page 6 
evidence that DAAD fellowships are limited to those artists who completed their education "not longer 
than 3 years ago at the time of application." It is clear fiom the materials submitted that the DAAD 
fellowship is designed to fund future work and education and is limited to those at the beginning of 
their careers. As the most experienced and renowned members of the field are not seeking these 
fellowships, they cannot demonstrate that the petitioner compares with the small percentage that has 
risen to the top of her field. Thus, this fellowship cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate issued by the World Trade Center Site Memorial 
Competition for "recognition of your participation" in the competition. The certificate does not suggest 
that the petitioner is singled out fiom other participants or that participation itself was limited to 
awardees of a separate competition. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner acknowledges that her entry "did not win" but asserts that it "gained the respect" of her 
collaborator, "one of the most important engineers of our time, who has won hundreds of awards." The 
petitioner concludes: "To have collaborated with two of the most impressive persons in art and 
engineering is an honor that is rarely achieved by artists at my age." On appeal, the petitioner reiterates 
that her fellow team members had won prizes and awards and that it is a recognized honor to work with 
such "highly regarded senior professionals." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the alien's receipt 
of a quali~ing prize or award. Collaborating with award winning members of the field is insufficient. 
As the petitioner only received a certificate of participation and did not receive an award or prize in this 
competition, it cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
In light of the above, while the director incorrectly categorized all of the petitioner's honors as 
academic, we concur with the director's ultimate conclusion that the evidence does not establish that 
the petitioner 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 alliedjeld of specification for which classification is sought. 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion may be reviewed as to whether it is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26,2005). 
Initially, the petitioner did not claim to meet this criterion specifically. Rather, she stated that she had 
authored a scholarly article as an art critic. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, 
the petitioner asserts that not only does this article meet this criterion, she also meets this criterion 
through her recommendations to a gallery in Switzerland. The director concluded that peer review was 
routine in the field and that the petitioner had not provided evidence that set her apart fiom other artists. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that peer review is an academic practice that is not routine in the field 
of visual arts. In addition, the petitioner asserts that her show recommendation for the Internet cultural 
event guide Flavorpill and artist recommendations for the Swiss art gallery serve to meet this criterion. 
Finally, the petitioner notes that she is qualified to nominate artists for the residency program in which 
she participated but acknowledges that she has not actually done so. 
While we concur with the petitioner that peer review is not routine in the art field, her article cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. The article, "The Artist as a Social Critique," is published on toutfait: The 
Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal. While the website proclaims that it is recognized by the 
BBCi, Leonardo digital reviews, The New York Times and aicausa, the record contained little evidence 
of the site's actual viewership. On appeal, the petitioner submits materials from the website attesting to 
200,000 visitors over four years. Regardless, the article "is based on an interview with - 
the founder of the Art Science Research Laboratory located in Soho, Manhattan New 
York and her findings about the art of Marcel Ducharnp." Thus, the petitioner appears to be a journalist 
reporting on an art critique by Thus, is judging the work of others in this 
context, not the petitioner. As such this article cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner claims to have submitted a press release for the "[the petitioner] and friends from New 
York" exhibition at the Roland Aphold Gallery in Switzerland listed her cooperation with - 
to expand a program to the United States and an article in Basel News" listing the petitioner as a 
curator for the show. The press release indicates that in 2005, started a collaborative 
working relationship with the petitioner and, as a result, has expanded his studio-visiting program 
across the Atlantic and is now presenting the gallery's first international artist collaborative project. A 
press release, however, is a very self-serving document, and the petitioner's role is not well defined. 
The article in Base1 News merely lists the petitioner as an artist and notes her collaborative piece with 
artist, but does not characterize the petitioner as a curator. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits two electronic mail messages fromto the petitioner. The first message states that 
likes the work o- and would like to include him in an exhibit at the gallery. 
The second message states that the petitioner may select up to three colleagues who are members of the 
gallery's international group to participate in the exhibition "[The petitioner] and friends from NYC." 
The petitioner has been collaborating with since 2005. While her display in Switzerland 
has been considered as evidence to meet the display criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii), 
we are not persuaded that these casual conversations on who else would appear at her exhibition and a 
different exhibition constitute the type of formal judging responsibilities that might serve to meet this 
criterion. 
Finally, as acknowledged by the petitioner, she has yet to nominate any individuals for the artist 
residency program. Regardless, far more persuasive than being one of the many individuals in the field 
qualified to nominate individuals would be serving on the far more exclusive panel that selects the final 
residents. 
Without evidence far more indicative of national or international acclaim, such as evidence that the 
petitioner judged the work of artists at a nationally significant competition or served as an art critic for a 
nationally significant art journal, the petitioner cannot establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alienS original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted several reference letters but did not explain exactly what specific 
contributions she has made to her field. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, 
the petitioner asserts that the letters are more demonstrative of an impact in the field than sales figures 
would be, noting that Van Gogh's work did not sell well during his life and providing the example of a 
commercially successful sculptor whose work is not considered influential by critics. 
The director concluded that while the petitioner's work, like all art, is original, the petitioner had not 
demonstrated the impact of her work on the field as a whole. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she 
provided several letters, including independent letters, that should be afforded significant weight under 
the standard set forth at Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). She 
further asserts that she invented the technique of photography embedded in wax, which has been 
recognized by experts and copied by other artists, although the petitioner further asserts that artists 
rarely copy the techniques of others. 
As acknowledged by the petitioner, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See id. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
 The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 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. 
In evaluating the reference letters under this criterion, we note that letters containing mere assertions 
of widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that 
specifically identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have 
influenced the field. 
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. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the arts, the contribution must be documented as widely influential. The petitioner's 
assertion that influence is rarely apparent in her field because artists try to be original is not 
persuasive. We will not apply a lesser standard simply because the petitioner asserts that it is 
difficult to meet this criterion in her field. It is precisely because an artist's impact is rare and 
apparent only after time that evidence meeting this criterion can demonstrate sustained national or 
international acclaim. While the example of Van Gogh suggests that some currently acclaimed 
artists were not recognized during their lifetimes, it remains that the exclusive classification sought 
requires extensive evidence of sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing, 
which cannot be presumed simply because the petitioner is able to produce an example of an artist 
whose influence was posthumous. 
Given the above considerations, we will consider the reference letters. The majority of the letters 
submitted simply praise the petitioner's talent and style. Subjective evaluations of talent, while 
consistent with the petitioner's ability to successfully work in her field and secure exhibitions at 
distinguished locations, do not necessarily create a presumption that the petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
of the Rathaus Gallery asserts that the petitioner's career partly started at the 
gallery and that her "original and inventive installations including experimental sound pieces, 
photography-in-wax objects and various others were profoundly impressive, moving and inspiring." 
- a faculty member at the Parsons School of Design where the petitioner was 
previously a student, asserts that the petitioner revitalized the Dadaist tradition within a context of 
innovative contemporary technological explorations. While asserts that the petitioner 
has "become a major influence in the development of contemporary art," she provides no examples 
of this influence. Gallery Director at the Alp Galleries that has displayed the 
petitioner's work in New York, characterizes the petitioner as a "driving force for the continued 
renewal of contemporary art," but provides no examples of any influence. , an artist 
who has collaborated with the petitioner, asserts that she has "the great ability to inspire other 
artists." however, provides no examples of any independent artist influenced by the 
petitioner. 
, Director of the Art Research Laboratory, asserts that the petitioner's article on- 
was a major contribution to the laboratory and its magazine. 
 does not explain 
w 
this conclusion in light of the clear and unambiguous statement at the beginning of the article 
indicating that the information in the article comes from an interview with and is based 
on the findings of That statement and the footnotes referencing the interview reveal 
that the ideas in the article are those of. Thus, this article cannot be considered a 
contribution by the petitioner. 
, a New York artist, provides a lengthy discussion of the significance of the petitioner's 
work. Specifically, he states: 
In a very short time [the petitioner] has risen to the apex of her field and has already 
made a major impact on the art world. Her shows at the Goethe Institute in 2002, The 
Aronson Galleries in 2003, VertexList Gallery and the New York Art Fair in 2004 
have reshaped the art world's understanding of minimalist art in the century. I can 
think of no other artist of her generation who has had such a sudden and complete 
impact. It would be a tragic loss to the art community of America if an artist of [the 
Page 10 
petitioner's] stature and accomplishment were not given an opportunity to continue to 
contribute directly to American culture. 
To understand what I mean by this you have to understand the degree to which an 
artist who was raised outside of our culture can at times see that culture more 
objectively. [The petitioner's] work has bridged a gap that has existed in 
contemporary art making for over thirty years. The tradition that [the petitioner's] 
work comes from is a minimalist tradition. Historically this tradition has tried to 
purge all associations from the work to create a more or less "pure" art form. This 
tradition lead [sic] to many of the century's most extraordinary American 
contemporary art accomplishments. Unfortunately it also lead [sic] to an aesthetic 
dead end, until [the petitioner] as an outsider to American culture, presciently saw 
that what was missing from minimalist work was the very thing it had so actively 
discouraged, humanism. [The petitioner] has brought back to reductive work a range 
of visual poetry that could never have been arrived at by an American artist. Her 
work allows for the rigor and purity of minimalist work while seducing the viewer 
with narratives and associations that had been previously disallowed. I cannot 
overestimate the importance of this gesture. What might have been seen as a rear- 
garde action by an American artist has become the most progressive action by [the 
petitioner]. 
The record, however, lacks evidence that the significance of the petitioner's influence on the 
minimalist tradition is widely recognized, such as articles in contemporary art journals discussing a 
new trend in minimalist art. Significantly, the articles on minimalism provided, including an article 
on the synthesis of humanism and minimalism, do not mention the petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a photograph of what purports to be a photograph embedded in 
wax with no evidence regarding the artist, influence or place of exhibition. The petitioner also 
submits a German-language article featuring the photograph "Wintenvald" by - 
which appears to be embedded in wax. Without a certified translation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), this article has no evidentiary value. Specifically, we cannot determine where in 
Germany r is based, thus raising concern as to whether the petitioner's influence extends 
past the German city in which she began using this technique. Moreover, we cannot determine 
whether the article credits the petitioner with developing this technique. Finally, the use of this 
technique by one other artist of unknown repute cannot demonstrate that the petitioner's technique is 
widely influential. 
While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented and original artist, it falls short of 
establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 11 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner authored an article that was posted on tout-fait, an online journal. As 
further stated above, while the website proclaims that it is recognized by the BBCi, Leonardo digital 
reviews, The New York Times and aicausa, the record contains little evidence of the site's actual 
viewership. Finally, as noted twice previously, the article "is based on an interview with - 
, the founder of the Art Science Research Laboratory located in Soho, Manhattan New 
York and her findings about the art of -1 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the significance of this material. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits information from the tout-fait website reflecting that it had 200,000 
visitors in four years. 
As the petitioner has not demonstrated that this article represents her own scholarship, the petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner asserted that her commission to prepare the 120 slide Powerpoint presentation and a 
website for the German National Tourist Office of New York serves to meet this criterion. The director 
concluded that this role could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
director did not sufficiently consider the evidence submitted to meet this criterion. She submits 
additional information about the project and regarding her role as a "researcher" for Partison Pictures' 
"Ghosts of the Baltic Sea," broadcast on the National Geographic Channel. 
While the petitioner may have played a major role in the composition of materials for the German 
National Tourist Office, we are not persuaded that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for 
an organization or establishment. The fact that the petitioner received this commission demonstrates 
only her ability to earn a living as a graphic artist and web designer. This project, while involving 
"media," did not involve the creation of any original art. Thus, this project does not appear to fall 
within the petitioner's claimed area of extraordinary ability, mixed media contemporary art. Similarly, 
the petitioner's research into the sinking of three German evacuation ships for Partison Pictures does 
not appear to involve the creation of any original art and, thus, does not appear to fall within the 
petitioner's claimed area of extraordinary ability. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Page 12 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an 
artist to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim 
or to be withn the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a mixed media artist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.