dismissed EB-1A Case: Painting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9286238 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a painter , 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement by satisfying at least 
three of the ten evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)- (x). The Director further found 
that the Petitioner did not establish that his entry would substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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) 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 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is an ~---------~Painter" who has displayed 
his work in the United States, Spain, Taiwan, Costa Rica, and his native Venezuela. He received a 
bachelor's degree in civil engineering before completing his artistic training at thel I 
Museum inl !between 2004 and 2012. 
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 Director found that the Petitioner met one of these ten criteria, 
relating to display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The record reflects that his work has been exhibited at several gallery exhibitions. Accordingly, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the display criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the following evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3): 
• (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards; 
• (ii) Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii) Published materials about him and relating to his work; 
• (viii) Leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation; and 
• (x) High salary or other significantly high remuneration. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
2 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 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. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on the following: 2 
• Honorable Mention-I 12018 Online Showcase; 
• "Artist of the Day" se~le-c-t1-. o-n--:i======================~=~ ...... 1-----. 
• Finalist (Still Life category)-1 I Salon Competition 
(2017); 
• Finalist (Still Life category)- Salon Com etition (2016); 
• Finalist and Gallery A ........... ~~=-~--~ Competition (2015); 
• Honorable Mention t-rt-----=c,,....o-n-te-s-ts_(..,.,2'""0"""0....,6-, -=-'20-07); 
• Nomination Art Contests (2005, 2008); 
• Nomination fo Prize" - Salonl 1(2012); 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence relating to the 
competitions in which he participated and did not establish that the awards he received are nationally 
or internationally awards for excellence in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner contests this finding 
noting that he provided extensive supporting evidence relating to each award and each awarding entity. 
He also emphasizes that the Director did not mention all of his awards in the decision and it is therefore 
unclear whether he considered them. 
While we disagree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence relating to the competitions in which he participated, for the reasons discussed below, we 
find insufficient evidence to establish that the submitted evidence meets all elements of this criterion. 
With respect to his "honorable mention award" from I I 2018 online showcase, the 
Petitioner submitted a copy of his certificate, a public announcement of the award winners froml I 
website, and background information regarding thd lwhich is described as a 3,400-member 
national organization "established for the sole purpose of representing traditional, representational oil 
painters." The contest rules for the online showcase (held three times per year) indicate that entry is 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a 
single institution, for example, may have little national or international significance)_ 
2 The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion based r honorable mention recogTtions at th<'I I 
I I Salon (2008 and 2009) and a second-place award at the~--------~ in honor of the 50th 
anniversary ofthel l Venezuela. On appeal, the Petitioner has not pursued his claim that these 
are qualifying awards and we will therefore not discuss them here. We note that the Petitioner's painting appears in the 
exhibition booklet for the I ~ exhibition, but the record does not contain evidence of the referenced second 
place award. 
3 
limited to c=Jmembers. All entries are displayed on the Os online showcase and winners receive 
cash prizes. 
TheLJ s announcement of the results of itsl I 2018 online showcase indicates that there were 
517 entries. The juror of the competition awarded first, second and third-place prizes (which included 
cash awards), and recognized 10 additional pieces with an honorable mention. The Petitioner did not 
provide evidence that he received any type of award or prize apart from the honorable mention 
certificate, nor is there evidence that the results of this online showcase were publicized or recognized 
outside of thee=) website and membership. 
The Petitioner submitted copies oflocal media articles that discuss other~ompetitions and artists 
who received awards in such competitions, including the gold medalist oLJ' s 2019 I I 
Exhibition (described as Os "highest honor for master signature artists") and a silver medalist at 
thec=)'sl !Regional Show. The record does not contain similar media coverage ofthe0s 
online showcases. The Petitioner provided online profiles of other artists, asserts that they also 
participated in th~ 12018 online showcase, and notes that they enjoy "recognition and good 
reputations in the field." However, it is unclear how this evidence establishes that the Petitioner's 
honorable mention recognition meets this criterion. 
While the Petitioner provided evidence thaO is a nationally recognized organization, this status 
does not establish that an honorable mention in one of its seasonal online competitions is a nationally 
recognized award for excellence in the Petitioner's field. Rather, it is the recognition that the award 
receives in the field on a broader level, beyond the issuing organization or event, that determines 
whether it satisfies that element of this criterion. 
With regard to the Petitioner's selection as an "Artist of the Day," the Petitioner provided evidence that 
he was the featured artist onl Is social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter) onl • I D 2017 The social media accounts provided a link to his artist profile and artwork onl Is 
website. I I is described as "the I I online art gallery" representing more than 
60,000 artists. The Petitioner submitted a letter froml lofl I who states "[o]ur 
curators selected [the Petitioner] from among 60,000 artists to be presented ... as Artist of the Day." 
She states that "[t]his is an extremely sought after internationally recognized prize, based on the large 
number of artists throughout the world who show their work onl I and the level of exposure 
that is achieved throughout the world through the prize, given the hundreds of thousands of diverse 
collectors who follow! I on social media."I I further notes that~ I's curatorial 
staff are "renowned art industry experts" who select "only a small percentage ofC ~, for this 
honor. 
While the Petitioner has shown that it is an honor to be among the artists selected for "Artist of the 
Day," the plain language of the regulation requires evidence that he was the recipient of an "award or 
prize for excellence" in his field. The evidence does not support! I statement that selection 
as an "Artist of the Day" is a "prize," nor does the evidence establish what criteria are used for 
selection. For these reasons, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's selection as an artist 
of the day is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
4 
We have also considered evidence of the Petitio~inalist" status in the I I Salon 
Competitions. The Petitioner asserts that thL_J Salon is "the most prestigious realist art 
competition in the Americas." 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of the introduction from the ~-------~ Salon 
Competition's exhibition catalogue, which indicates that 1,006 works (32% of all submitted) were 
selected as finalists that year. The submitted evidence did not establish that all finalists received a 
"prize or award" or support the Petitioner's claim that being named a finalist is a prize or award in­
and-of-itself. The book introduction mentions that thel I Salon Competition 
awarded: a Best in Show prize; a special prize for the runner-up to the Best in Show; first, second and 
third place awards in each of eight designated categories; five special awards; six Chairman's Choice 
Awards; eightD Staff awards; two museum purchase awards, and seven magazine awards, among 
others. Similar results are summarized in the submitted exhibition catalogue for the I I 
~ Salon Competition. 
The Petitioner provided a letter froml L Os chief operating officer, who states that 
"[f]inalist status in thel I Salon is a nationally and internaJionallr recognized award 
for excellence" noting that "finalists' work is displayed in a print catalog, o s website, and may 
be featured in a traveling exhibition." However! I does not explain how finalist status qualifies 
as an "award or prize" in a competition that bestows all of the above-mentioned awards. 
While the evidence reflects that the Petitioner, as one of dozens of finalists in his category, 3 had his 
work displayed on thel !website and in th~ Salon exhibition catalogs, he did not establish 
that he received an "award or prize" as a finalist. Therefore, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's 
"finalist" status in twol I Salon competitions garnered him some recognition that 
would be weighed under a final merits determination, the record does not establish that it is a prize or 
award that satisfies all elements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims eli ibilit under this criterion based on his "Finalist" status and "Gallery 
award" at the 2015 Com etition held in He 
submitted a "Recognition Certificate" from the .__ ____________ ___. Art Association 
indicating he was selected as a finalist but did not submit a comparable certificate for his "Gallery 
Award." However, the Petitioner provided a screenshot of the I IFacebook page, 
which lists the results of the competition. These results recognize a Championship winner, a 
Chairman's Award winner, and 34 "Gallery Winners" who were "selected into 
I I 2016." The Petitioner's name was listed among these 34 art ..... i-st_s_, -an_d_t_h_e_P_e-t1-·t1-.o-n_e........,r 
provided exhibition advertisements and an exhibition catalog confirming the inclusion of his painting 
in the exhibition held in 02015. The evidence reflects that 90 finalists were 
selected to participate in th_~--~i--ortion of the exhibition, which according to one of the submitted 
media articles, included 278 artists and nearly 2000 artworks. Based on the submitted evidence, it 
appears that all 90 finalists participated in the 2015 ~-------~exhibition, while the 
"Gallery Award" winners also received invitations to return to exhibit their work in the 2016 edition 
of the event. 
3 In 2012, for example, there were 466 entries in the Still Life category, of which 171 were named finalists and winners. 
5 
The supporting evidence shows that the I • lexhibition receives significant media 
coverage, and that the works of finalists from thd I are "a staple at the annual fair" making up 
one of the ten sections at the exhibition. While the evidence indicates that the competition is 
international in scope and quite competitive based on the number of entries, the record does not 
establish that recognition as a finalist involves the receipt of a "prize or award," or that the "gallery 
award" is an internationally recognized prize for ~nee in the field. The submitted media 
O
e focuses on the increasing popu]aritv oftpeL___Jcompetition as well as thel I 
exhibition, but does not mentiod.__ __ ~kinners or finalists or demonstrate that finalists or 
ga ery award winners receive recognition that extends beyond the event's website and attendees at 
the exhibition. 
As noted, the Petitioner also claims eligibility based on his two "Honorable Mention" and two 
"Nomination" recognitions received inl IArt Contests between 2005 and 2008. The 
Petitioner states that this is a national competition in Venezuela, sponsored by '---------~ manufacturer. The submitted com etition results reflect that the contest selects first, second and third 
place winners, one winner of a Mention," one winner of a .__ _____ ___, Mention," 
one winner of a '--------~ Mention," several "Special mentions," several "Honorable 
mentions," with several artists recognized as "nominees" or "pre-selectees," which appears to be 
comparable to a "finalist" status. 
An article about the competition indicates that it is "aimer at students anh amateurs over 15 years" 
and that works must be created using certain brands from.__ ____ ~The evidence reflects that 
the first, second and third place finishers receive cash prizes, and all others who are pre-selected 
receive a I I case." The Petitioner submitted an article from Analytica.com about the 7th 
edition of the contest held in 2005, which states that there were 264 entries. The article mentions the 
winners of first, second and third place awards, two special mentions, and two honorable mentions, 
but does not mention the Petitioner or the work that earned him a nomination. The Petitioner also 
submitted brief articles regarding the 2007 and 2008 editions of the contest, both published online by 
El Papel. The article from 2007 mentions that 27 artists were recognized out of 123 submissions to 
the contest but does not identify the artists or their awards. The article about the 2008 contest also 
mentions that there were 27 winners out of "more than a hundred works," and only identifies the first­
place winner. 
~Wh..:....:....::c;:;;:;.il;:;.::e:........::.:th;:;.:e:..1:I =.-----~!Art Contest appears to be national in scope andl I is an 
.... I _____ __.I recognized brand, the submitted documentation does not establish that an honorable 
mention or nomination in this contest, which is limited to students and amateurs and has a relatively 
small number of entrants, is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in this 
field. The evidence does not sufficiently establish that artists selected as nominees or honorable 
mentions receive recognition that extends beyond the awarding organization. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on his nomination for thel I 
I !Prize" in the Venezuelan competitiod I noting that this is "an important 
national award in Venezuela for excellencr " The evidence jndicates that thel I Prize is 
an award for drawing given as part of the '.__ _____ ___,Arts Prizel I Exhibition." A 
booklet recognizing the winners of the 41 st edition held in 2012 indicates that the jurors recognized a 
"winner" and an "honorable mention" in drawing and several other categories, while the Petitioner's 
6 
name was listed among many dozen "selected artists." The Petitioner's certificate from this 
competition indicates that he "participated" and that his drawing was included in the exhibition. The 
evidence does not establish, however, that a certificate of participation is an "award or prize for 
excellence" in the field. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he has received lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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) 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on his "memberships as Finalist" in 
thel lsalons and his membership in thd , I. 4 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that he is a member of an association, and 
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. 5 
With respect to his finalist status in twd ISalons, the Petitioner emphasizes that he 
was required to present outstanding work that was judged by experts in his field in order to be 
recognized as a finalist. However, he has not explained how achieving finalist status in an annual art 
competition conveyed membership in an association, as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As noted, the Petitioner submitted the same evidence in 
support of the awards criterion which was appropriate given the nature of the ~ Salon as a 
competition in his field rather than an association in his field. 
Regarding his membershi in thel L the Petitioner submitted a certificate and membership card 
indicating his rank as an L_ __ ...,-------;' This evidence was accompanied by a letter from the 
association's President-Founder,.__ ____ __, who describes the academy as "an international 
Association made up of 400 member artists from 50 countries" who are "selected by a jury of 
exceptional member artists with credentials demonstrating recognition for their expertise in their 
respective fields of art." He indicates that new members are selected "based on the high quality of 
their work, originality, the skill required to create the artwork, as well as the artist's achievements in 
terms of art exhibitions, prizes and/or other qualifications." The Petitioner also provided a list of jury 
members from the association's website d I, and media articles about a 
few of the member artists. 
4 The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility based on his membership in.__ _______ _. the International 
Association of Art, and The Venezuela Association of Plastics Arts, but did not pursue these claims in response to the 
Director's request for evidence or on appeal. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 6-7 (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). 
7 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a second letter from I I who 
provided additional information regarding the composition of thel ljury. He notes that it is 
composed of a group of 42 "exceptional artists, gallery owners, art critics, university professors of art, 
and directors of art magazines" and states that they are "nationally and/or internationally recognized 
art experts." I I highlights the credentials and achievements of five of theLJjury members, 
and repeats verbatim his earlier statements regarding the criteria for membership in thel I. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that 
outstanding achievements are required for membership, or evidence (such as the association's 
constitution or bylaws) that discusses the qualifications required for the reviewers of the review panel. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the regulations do not require submission of an association's 
constitution or bylaws, and asserts tha~ Is letter is sufficient to establish that his membership 
in the I I satisfies all requirements of this criterion. 
While we have considered I I's letter!, we aree with the Director that his statements are not 
sufficiently detailed to establish that the requires prospective members to demonstrate 
"outstanding achievements" as a condition of admission. As noted, I I mentions that thd I 
considers factors such as "high quality of their work, originality, the skill required to create the 
artwork, as well as the artist's achievements in terms of art exhibitions, prizes and/or other 
qualifications." This statement is broad and is not accompanied by any supporting evidence regarding 
thd lor its membership requirements, such as information from its website regarding membership 
and the application process, or its constitution or bylaws, which may contain information regarding 
the selection criteria and process for becoming a I ..., 1"6 Although the Petitioner 
~o the Director's request for the D's bylaws or constitution or any other evidence beyond 
L___js letters, the regulations state that a petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, 
in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). For the reasons discussed, 
the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual 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 satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him and 
relating to his work in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the 
title, date, and author of the material. 7 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director either mischaracterized or overlooked "the most 
important publications" submitted under this criterion, and imposed requirements that are not indicated 
by the plain language of the regulations. The record reflects that the Petitioner has submitted several 
6 As noted, the only screen;ill.Q1....1Qe Petitioner provided from the ~ website was a list of the Official~ Jury 
members. We note that thel__Jwebsite states the following regarding its membership criteria: "The first criterion is 
talent, regardless of the length of the CV, years of experience, awards and honors received. You can try your luck even if 
you are a new artist[.]" See Website of I I http~ I 
index.php/fr/candidature (accessed on Jul. 28, 2020). 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
8 
in-depth interviews that are about him and relating to his work, and which also include the required 
author, title and date of publication. He also emphasizes that his work has appeared in curated online 
collections and in exhibition books, but these sources, which display his work, do not include an 
article, interview or other information about him, and therefore do not satisfy the criterion. Therefore, 
the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established that any of the referenced articles or 
interviews were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner specifically highlights the following evidence in support of his 
claim that he meets this criterion: (1) his interview on the YouTube progra~ 1(2) an interview 
published in Artspace's online magazine (www.artspace.com/magazine); (3) inclusion of his work in 
I I publications at~ ______ _, (4) a feature on his work published by the website 
Art People Gallery (www.artpeoplegallery.com); (5) an article published by the website Globedia 
(www.globedia.com); and (6) an interview with the magazine Revista Ophelia. He claims that most 
of the sources cited above qualify as major media or major trade publications, while he describes 
Revista Ophelia as a professional publication 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient comparative circulation or distribution data to support his 
claim that he and has work have been featured in major media and/or major trade publications. 8 
However, we find that he meets this criterion based on the article titled 'I I I t published by Revista Ophelia in 2018. The record supports his claim 
that this magazine is a professional publication in his field. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner maintains that he has played a leading or critical role "for his own painting 
establishment" as well as fon I, I 11 I ~ Galleries, and 
and that the evidence demonstrates that these are "distinguished 
organizations." In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a leading role should be apparent 
by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical 
role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically emphasizes his "leading roles" withl 1,1 I 
c=J, and I I and his leading role "in his own establishment," which he claims the 
Director failed to consider. 
Although not initially claimed under this criterion, the Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that he 
plays a "leading or critical role for his business of the creation of art" noting that such business 
"constitutes an establishment that has a distinguished reputation." 
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 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he "performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." (emphasis 
added). The Petitioner did not establish that he, as an individual, qualifies as an "organization" or 
"establishment." The Petitioner's argument that "artists serve as their own establishment" because 
they rely on their "own skills and abilities" and "play a leading role to create a successful masterpiece" 
is not persuasive. Although he cites to the dictionary definitions of "organization" and "establishment" 
he does not explain how the work of an individual artist meets the cited definitions of either term. 
The Petitioner also provided letters from yrious greries that have exhibited his work. I " I 
director and founder o~ !Gallery in Venezuela, confirms that the Petitioner's paintings 
were on permanent display between 2007 and 2012, noting that the permanent exhibition "enjoyed 
great acceptance by our customers" and "commercial success." He states that the Petitioner's artwork 
"sold quickly, and with a higher price compared to the artworks of other similar artists" in the same 
genre, which is why "his work was exhibited for so many years in a row." Whilel Is letter 
discusses other aspects of the Petitioner's career and achievements, he offers no farther information 
regarding how he played a leading or critical role for thel !Gallery. 
The Petitioner asserts that an artist who is earning more than other artists and whose work is selling 
faster "is absolutely vital to a gallery," that "those are precisely the types of artists that galleries want 
to represent," and why he "played a leading and critical role for the gallery." However,! Is 
letter does not establish that the Petitioner's role as an artist represented by the gallery was "leading" 
based on his title, placement in the organization, or his duties, nor does he provide sufficient 
information to establish that the success of the Petitioner's former permanent exhibition was of 
significant importance to the outcome of the gallery's activities to the extent that his role was deemed 
critical. 
With res~ect to his role withl I Gallery, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml 
I J who confirms that that the Petitioner was one of 166 figurative artists invited.__b_y.,...l -----1 
to create a 20 cm by 20 cm original piece for an exhibition titled "20 aiios en 20 x 20" to celebrate the 
gallery's 20th anniversary. I I highlights some of the well-known artists who created 
artwork for this exhibition, praises the Petitioner's work, and indicates that I I intends to include 
him among the 100 artists it will feature in the 2020 edition of the annually published art bookl I I I The Petitioner claimed that because each artist in the I !anniversary exhibition "was 
chosen with care based on the highest standards," all of the participating artists, including the 
Petitioner, "play a leading and critical role for the organization." While we acknowledge that it has 
an honor for the Petitioner to be invited to participate in the gallery's 20th anniversary exhibition, the 
evidence does not establish how his involvement in one past event, among 159 other artists, establishes 
his leading or critical role for this well-established gallery. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml ~irector ofl Is ,j,___ ____ __. 
0' who comments on I ts relationship with the Petitioner. As noted, the record reflects 
tha~ I represents more than 60,000 artists and has sold work to more than 12 million 
collectors worldwide. In her letter,I !confirms that I I sold 10 of the Petitioner's 
original artworks and 11 prints since 2013, and notes that, because its curators appreciate the 
Petitioner's work, they have selected his work for nine of their curated online collections. She also 
emphasizes his "Artist of the Day" selection, and notes that he was one of 103 artists selected to 
10 
participate in I I in 2019. Finally, I I states that the Petitioner's artwork 
"particularly as of 2019" comes with "a substantially high price tag," noting that in recognition of 
these prices, he was twice selected among the "Sales of the Week." She concludes that, for all of these 
reasons," the Petitioner "has played and continues to play an important role forl t' as his 
"works have been sought by our clients and his paintings have sold successfully over the course of 
many years." 
Whilel lrefers to the Petitioner's role as "important," we note thatl I sells millions 
of pieces and represents tens of thousands of artists. The evidence does not support a conclusion that 
every artist highlighted in some way the organization's curators, even on several occasions, has a 
"leading role" in the organization, or that the Petitioner has contributed to the organization in a way 
that has been of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's activities Thp evidence 
indicates that the organization's curators admire the Petitioner's work and that[ ]has sold a 
number of his paintings and prints. However, the evidence submitted is insufficient to demonstrate 
that his contributions rise to the level of a role that is leading or critical to the organization. 
On a eal the Petitioner briefly mentions his "leading or critical role forLJGalleries andl~-~ 
r-----_,_ __ _J' by "providing high quality artwork that sells at high prices." A letter from 
general director o±1 I, confirms that they contacted the Petitioner in 2016 ~----~ to exhibit his paintings in the gallery. She notes that "w~ all the artworks on display (two 
large oil paintings)" and "are waiting for new paintings." of0Galleries states that the 
Petitioner "is one of the very few who I wanted to display at Galleries due to the quality and 
extraordinary talent de demonstrates," and indicates that he is a "tremendous asset to the gallery," 
which displays 1500 original works by 150 artists. Both I I and I f go on to discuss 
the Petitioner's other achievements and genre of art, but they do not offer further details that would 
demonstrate how the Petitioner has played a role that was leading or critical for their respective 
galleries simply by exhibiting his work there. 
While the Petitioner provided evidence in support of his claim that some of the galleries discussed 
above enjoy a distinguished organization in his field, the evidence does not demonstrate his leading 
or critical role these organizations or establishments. Accordingly, he has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner claimed that he is highly compensated for the sale of his paintings. The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner provided some evidence related to the sale of his work but noted that 
the record lacks sufficient documentation of his previous earnings ( such as tax documents) and 
comparative data regarding the remuneration that other artists receive for comparable work, and 
therefore did not demonstrate that his remuneration is significantly high in relation to others. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that he provided a 2018 Contemporary Art Market Report 
compiled by Artprice which establishes that he commands significantly high remuneration for his 
paintings, and he now submits the 2019 edition of this report. He also emphasizes that he submitted 
letters froml ll . l I I ancic:::=:ballery which corroborate his 
claim that his work "sells for substantially more than othetj I painters." 
11 
The Petitioner has documented the sales price for only two of his paintings which sold in May 2019 
for $10,387 and $9,010, respectively. While the letters from galleries referenced in his appeal brief 
mention that his paintings gamer a relatively high price compared to similar artwork, they do not 
include any figures and therefore do not provide evidence of his past remuneration for his work. 
Further, we note tha~ I representing I I noted that the Petitioner's sales prices are 
higher "particularly as of 2019 ," thus suggesting that he has not consistently earned the documented 
amounts for his artwork. 
According to the 2019 Artprice Contemporary Market Report, "the vast majority of Contemporary 
paintings are relatively affordable with 74% changing hands for under $5,000." The 2018 edition of 
the report mentions that "the average price of a successfully auctioned Contemporary artwork has risen 
from $8,400 at the tum of the 2isr century to $28,000 today" and indicates that 80% of artwork sold 
at $8,053 and under. While these figures establish that the Petitioner gamers higher remuneration than 
many artists, they do not establish that he has commanded significantly high remuneration in relation 
to others. Further, the Artprice market reports are limited to data for contemporary artwork sold at 
auction; the submitted evidence does not establish how prices for artwork sold at auction compare to 
prices for similar artwork sold by galleries, and the Petitioner has not provided evidence of 
remuneration he received for artwork sold at auction. 
Overall, the Petitioner provided limited documentation of his past remuneration of his artwork, and 
insufficient comparative information to establish that he commands significantly high remuneration 
in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he meets this criterion. 
C. Reserved Issue 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether his entry would substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States, as required by section 203(b )(1 )(A)(3) of the Act. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
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 evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner is a talented artist who is highly regarded by collectors and gallery 
12 
owners who display his work, has achieved finalist and honorable mention status in some significant 
art competitions and has enjoyed increasing attention from art-related media. However, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work and achievements at the time of filing 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 section 203(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 )(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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13