dismissed EB-1A Case: Painting

PUBLIC COPY 
alentifying data deleted io 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 03 05 1 5 1254 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 1 2005 
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. 
+Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 05 1 5 1254 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vern~ont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts as a painter. The 
petitioner initially submitted evidence of his paintings, exhibitions and media articles about his work, many of 
which were submitted without certified English translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence including certified translations of four 
articles about his work. The documents submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition 
and the appeal will be dismissed. We address the evidence submitted in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligbility under any criteria 
that are not discussed below. 
SRC 03 051 5 1254 
Page 3 
(iii) 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 ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains seven documents with articles about the petitioner's work or photographs of the petitioner 
and his work. Two of these documents are printed in English, but the record does not show that they were 
published in professional, major trade publications or other major media. The first English document is titled 
"Naif Paintings," but is undated and is from an unidentified source. The second English document is a one- 
paragraph announcement of the exhibition of the petitioner's paintings at the Ringwood Public Libriiry and was 
published in the May 2002 edition of Passaic County Arts News. 
The remaining five documents were printed in Spanish and were submitted without certified translations as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). On appeal, the petitioner submits certified translations of 
four of these articles. These documents feature photographs of the petitioner's work and discuss his career, 
techniques and contributions to primitivist painting in Colombia. However, the record contains no 
documentation regarding the publication and circulation of the magazines and newspapers in which these 
articles were printed. Hence, the evidence submitted does not demonstrate that these magazines and newspapers 
are professional, major trade publications or other major media in Colombia or abroad. Consequently, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the field. 
The articles submitted with translations on appeal indicate that the petitioner received limited recognition as a 
primitivist painter in Colombia from 1986 to 1998. Two articles quote the art critic Rodolfo Gutikez G6mez 
as stating, "In [the petitioner's] work one sees a miniaturist's outline, in his detailed process of concretizing 
form, malung the profile more emphatic, the delimiting of color that achieves a particular clarity." The article 
printed in the September 1998 edition of Renovacidn International further explains that the petitioner's work 
portrays "the orignal rural landscape in which the Colombian man lived in an epoch when he was ignorant of 
the modem currents that would bring him to the hovels of misery on the hillsides of great cities. This work 
petrifies in time an enchanting episode lived by our men who hadn't learned the word 'violence' or joined the 
world of 'dog-eat-dog."' While these articles provide vivid descriptions of the petitioner's work, they do not 
identify any orignal contributions of major significance that he has made to his field. For example, they do not 
state that the petitioner possesses a unique style or employs innovative techniques that have significantly 
influenced other artists. 
Materials concerning the petitioner's exhibitions similarly document his career, but do not demonstrate that the 
petitioner has made major contributions to his field. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Ihe United 
Nations Staff Recreation Council, which affirms that the Council, through its Colombian Cultural Club, 
sponsored the exhibition of the petitioner's paintings at the United Nations (U.N.) Headquarters building in New 
York City from May through June of 2000. Yet the record contains no documentation of the exhibition 
selection criteria for the U.N. Headquarters and no evidence that the petitioner's exhibition received critical 
acclaim or was otherwise significantly recognized in his field. On appeal, the petitioner also submits a letter 
from the Consulate General of Colombia in the United States confirming the exhibition of the petitioner's work 
at the Consulate in New York City. The letter itself is undated and does not state the dates of the petitioner's 
SRC 03 051 51254 
Page 4 
exhibition. Although the letter states that the petitioner's work was exhibited "with great success," the record 
contains no evidence to corroborate that statement. Again, the record is devoid of any evidence that this 
exhibition received critical acclaim or was otherwise significantly recognized in the petitioner's field in the 
United States or Colombia. The record also documents the exhibition of the petitioner's work at a local public 
library in the United States in 2002, but contains no evidence that the exhibition received national attention or 
critical acclaim. 
The media articles submitted on appeal state that the petitioner's work has been exhibited in national galleries in 
Colombia and international shows in Italy and France. The record contains cards apparently relating to some of 
these exhibitions, but the documents were submitted without certified translations as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the petitioner submitted no evidence that his work received significant 
critical acclaim at any of these exhibitions. 
Finally, the record shows that one of the petitioner's paintings was printed on a U.N. Children's Fund 
(UNICEF) greeting card. On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement describing the selection process for 
UNICEF greeting cards, but does not identify the source of the information presented. Even if selection for a 
UNICEF card is competitive and prestigious, the submitted document states that the petitioner's work was 
selected in 1996, seven years before his petition was filed. Consequently, his selection does not reflect the 
requisite sustained acclaim. 
The record documents limited recognition and display of the petitioner's work between 1986 and 2002, but does 
not establish that the petitioner has made original, major contributions to his field in a manner reflective of the 
requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
As discussed above under the fifth criterion, the record documents three exhibitions of the petitioner's work at 
the Colombian Consulate in New York City on an unspecified date, the U.N. Headquarters in New Y ork City in 
2000 and at a local public library in New Jersey in 2002. The petitioner submitted no documentation of the 
exhibition criteria for these venues. The record is also devoid of any evidence that these exhibitions received 
critical acclaim or other significant recognition in his field. 
The record contains documents relating to exhibitions of the petitioner's work in other countries, but these 
materials were submitted without certified translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). 
Three of the articles submitted on appeal note that the petitioner exhibited his work at the International Art Fair 
in Bologna, in national galleries in Colombia, and in France, but they do not discuss the significance of these 
exhibitions. The record thus does not establish that the petitioner's work has been exhibited in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Consequently, he does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
intemational acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as an artist 
placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligble for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Cj 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be 
approved. 
SRC 03 051 51254 
Page 5 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.