dismissed EB-1A Case: Painting

Pmuc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Avc.. N.W., Km. A3042 
Washingion, IIC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: m Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 03 093 5091 7 Date: SEP 3 0 MOS 
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. 9 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
>oben P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. 5 11 53(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: 
(I) 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. 5 204.5(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. $ 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. !j 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. fj 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 supporting evidence of his membership in artistic associations, his awards and 
prizes, one published and two personal albums of his paintings, five recommendation letters, Chinese newspaper 
articles, photographs of exhibitions of his work, his personal bank account statements, property titles for land 
owned by the petitioner in China, and a letter from a prospective employer in the United States. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits additional evidence, most of which cannot be considered because it arose after the petition 
was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Muller clf 
Kutigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1 ). We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in 
the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim 
eligibility under any criteria not discussed below. 
(0 Documenlation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationully or internationally recognizedprizrs or awards 
for excellence in he field of endeavor. 
The record includes copies of the following certificates: 1) an "Honor Certificate of Gold Award" presented to 
the petitioner at the World Chinese Art Exhibition in 2000 for his work, "Far Away," and conferring upon him 
the honorary title of "World Outstanding Chinese Artist;" 2) a silver prize awarded to the petitioner at the Third 
International Golden Swan Art Competition in "October, 1999 new work [sic], U.S.A.;" 3) an attestation to the 
petitioner's inclusion in the "Dictionary of World Painting and Calligraphy Artists" and honorary title of 
"Contemporary Painting and Calligraphy Eminent Artist" by the Canada World Painting and Calligraphy 
Association and the Editorial Committee of the Dictionary in 1998; 4) a Cold Award Certificate from the 
National Shu-Au-Xian Grand Exhibition dated May 1, 1995; 5) verification that one of the petitioner's oil 
paintings was selected by the China Association of Artists in 1994 for the Eighteenth Nikkiten International Art 
Exhibition jointly sponsored by the Tokyo Art Museum and the Japan Nikkikai Art Association; 6) a silver 
award in oil painting from this exhibition dated 1994; 7) a certificate attesting to the China Tianjin Museum's 
collection of the petitioner's work, "Big Panda" in 1993; 8) a Technique Innovation Award for the petitioner's 
oil painting, "Tarnished Home," exhibited at the China Contemporary Young Artist Masterpieces Exhibition in 
1993; 9) an "Excellent Pieces" award from the 59Ih International Painting Exhibition in Honor of the 3oth 
Anniversary of the Founding of the Association of International Contemporary Fine Artists in Japan in 1992; 
10) a Gold Award for the petitioner's work "Cavalier's Honor" from the China National Institute for Movie and 
Television Art in 1992; 11) a collection certificate for the petitioner's work, "The Love of Miao Fortress" from 
the Guangzhou Art College (the petitioner's alrna mater) in 1989; and 12) two silver awards from the 
Guangdong Major Thirteen Cities Movie Pictorial Playbill Excellent Works Exhibition in 1987. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits evidence of two additional honors from exhibitions in the United States. We cannot consider 
this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Mutler ofKatigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Apart from the award certificates themselves, the petitioner submitted no evidence regarding the significance of 
his honors in China from which we could assess whether or not the certificates demonstrate, reflect or are 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The only supplementary evidence submitted is an 
article from an unidentified Chinese newspaper listing the "Awarded Works of the First Cuangdong Movie 
Pictorial Playbill Exhibition in 1987." The article includes a photograph of one of the petitioner's award- 
winning movie posters and the petitioner is listed along with eight other silver awardees. The record does not 
show that this article was printed in a nationally circulated newspaper or any other evidence that the petitioner's 
awards gained national recognition outside of Ciuangdong province. Moreover, these awards were won in 1987, 
fifteen years before this petition was filed, and do not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel states that the first award listed above "is one of the highest national awards for a Chinese 
artist, a national and lifetime honor for a painting artist in China," yet he submits no evidence to support this 
statement. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Malter of 
Obuigbmu, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Mutter of Luureuno, 19 f&N Dec. I (BIA 1983); Mutter of 
Raniirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Counsel makes similarly unsupported statements 
regarding the significance of the petitioner's fifth certificate listed above. Although the evidence indicates that 
the petitioner won honors for his work in numerous exhibitions, the certificates alone do not establish the 
national or international recognition of those honors and we consequently cannot determine whether or not the 
petitioner's certificates reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in  association.^ in rheJeld for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding uchievements of their members, u.s judged by recognized national or internationul 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Oil Painters of America (OPA), the China 
Association of Artists, and the World Association of Beauty Culture. A submitted "Letter of History" of the 
OPA states that "[alll artists working in the oil medium" are eligible for OPA membership. On appeal, counsel 
states that the China Association of Artists "is the most authoritative and prestigious artist association. The 
members are strictly selected from the top experts in each art field in Chioa." Counsel repeats this description 
of the Association nearly verbatim from four Chinese newspaper articles that announce the petitioner's 
exhibition in Flushing, New York in 2002. Yet the record does not include the Association's membership 
criteria or other primary evidence to support its alleged prestige and selectivity. Finally, a document concerning 
the World Association of Beauty Culture is printed in Chinese and was not submitted with a certified English 
translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 103.2(b)(3). The record thus does not demonstrate that 
outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in the OPA, the China Association of Artists or the 
World Association of Beauty Culture. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation of his membership in two watercolor painting societies in the 
United States, but we cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. Again, the 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. 
(iiij Published material about rhe alien in professiunal or major trade publicarions or other major mediu, 
relating to the alien's work in the fieM for which cluss~fication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains a 30-page booklet entitled "Luo Zhen Album of Paintings" that was published by the World 
Culture Union Press in New York in 2002. The album includes an introduction, short biography of the 
petitioner, and photographs of 30 of his paintings. The back cover of the album states, "Printing Number: 1 - 
3,000 copies," but the petitioner submitted no evidence concerning the sale or distribution of the booklet. In 
addition, the record contains no evidence regarding the World Culture Union Press and its publishing criteria. 
The petitioner also submitted four articles printed in four Chinese newspapers from the New York Metropolitan 
region between September 18 and 2 1, 2002. The articles announce the petitioner's solo exhibition in Flushing, 
New York and briefly discuss his work. However, the record is devoid of any evidence that these newspapers 
are nationally circulated or otherwise constitute major media. Moreover, publications in a language that the 
majority of the U.S. population does not speak rarely evidence national acclaim in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits three additional newspaper articles that we cannot consider because they were 
published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition 
- Page 5 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)( 12), Katigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record does not establish that the petitioner's album is a professional publication consistent with the 
requisite sustained acclaim. The record also does not demonstrate that the four newspaper articles from 2002 
were printed in major media. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vj Evidence ofthe alien's origind scientific, .scholarly, urtistic, ufhlctic, ur business-related ccmtributions of 
major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted eight recommendation letters from individuals who are familiar with his work. While 
such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by 
themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's 
work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has worked 
directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect 
of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate 
to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
Associate Dean and Curator of the Oriental Art Collection at Saint John's University in 
states that the petitioner "is undoubtedly a versatile artist and his potential may be 
sufficient to become a prominent world-class artist in the future." yet-also rates the petitioner as 
amon "the top one percent of the outstanding painters I have ever met in past decade [sic] in the United States." 
& xplains that in the petitioner's work "we can see tremendous Western art theme as well as his subtle taste of color echoes the oriental rnelancholv elevated [sic1 his work to a level of global taste. This is really 
extraordinary and amazing! With his ample ialent he stbl h& tremendous space to go much further."- 
also notes that the petitioner earned the title of "King of Panda Painting" in China. 
Owner of the L.J. Wender Gallery of Fine Chinese Paintings in New York City, explains that 
he intends to invite the petitioner to exhibit his paintings at his gallery in the future.states that the 
petitioner is "a master painter in the field of Oil sic] painting and watercolor, especially in the painting of the 
Chinese national treasure - pandas.' d further explains that the petitioner "integrated the western 
techniques into his Chinese painting and created a new form ob-iects [sic] in both scenery and animals which - -. 
immediately earned tremendous recognition from peers." 
President of the World Association of Beauty Culture (of which the petitioner is a member), 
petitioner "successfully combined the strengths of Chinese paintings with that of Western 
paintings, i.e. the combination of the brush lines of Chinese paintings and the dimensions of Western's [sic] 
realistic moulding and focus perspective paintings. He created his own style and school of aintings. He was 
widely acclaimed and recognized by his peers in the field around the world."lso states that the 
petitioner is recognized as the "Chinese Master Painter of Pandas." 
President of the World Arts Center of which the petitioner is a member, explains that the 
his unique skills to paint pandas on the basis of traditional Chinese painting along with the 
in-depth influence of the Western Realistisril [sic]. In this way, he formed his own unique art style and fully 
recognized [sic] by his colleagues and peers." ~e-repeatr nearly verbatim two sentences from Dean 
Ho's letter: "[The petitioner] is undoubtedly a versatile artist and his potential definitely will bOe [sic] 
sufficient to become a prominent world-class artist in the future. . . . With his ample talents he still has 
tremendous space to go much further." 
Chief Executive Officer of ArtXchange, an art promoter and website which represents the 
petitioner, states that the petitioner's style "simplifies the best features of traditional Chinese painting combined 
with Western technique. The combination creates images that are truly unique." A letter from China 
International Books and Pictures Research College in China also attests to the petitioner's unique style and 
affirms that he "has been honored as Panda Master in China." The College explains that the petitioner "painted 
pandas with the sense of conservation of environment besides his extraordinary skills in oil painting and 
watercolor." Similar praise is found in the letters o former Professor at the Guangzhou College of 
Art when the petitioner was a student at the College, P and Associate Research Fellow of the 
Tianjin Municipal Commission of Science and Technology who is in charge of authenticating objects displayed 
at the Tianjin Museum, which collected one of the petitioner's paintings. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner meets this criterion because "[dlue to [his] ever-lasting and 
recent outstanding achievements in painting, he has won plenty amount [sic] of recommendation, recognition 
and admiration from top scholars and artists in claim, counsel cites a second letter 
ubmitted on appeal. In this of the petitioner due to his 
in the United States. We evised assessment of the petitioner's 
work because it is based on exhibitions that Again, the petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(l2), Karigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record does not persuasively document that the petitioner's painting style or his panda paintings, as 
described in his recommendation letters, have been recognized as original contributions of major significance to 
his field. As discussed above under the first criterion, the record does not document the significance of the 
petitioner's award certificates from China or otherwise demonstrate that these certificates reflect the requisite 
sustained acclaim. Moreover, only one of the certificates attests to the originality of the petitioner's work: the 
Technique Innovation Award for the petitioner's oil painting, "Tarnished Home," exhibited at the China 
Contemporary Young Artist Masterpieces Exhibition in 1993. Yet this award was presented to the petitioner 
nearly a decade before his petition was filed and does not demonstrate sustained acclaim tor his innovative 
technique. In addition, as discussed under the third criterion, the record contains only regional newspaper 
articles about the petitioner's work and only one published album of his paintings, the significance and 
distribution of which has not been established. Finally, as further discussed below under the seventh criterion, 
the record does not establish that the petitioner's work has been shown in major national or international 
exhibitions consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(vii) Eviu'er~ce of the di.~piq? of the ulien 's work in the fieldat artistic exhibitions or sholzcu,res. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that his work has been shown in China, Japan and the United States, but the 
record does not fully document the significance of the exhibitions in which he has participated. As discussed 
under the first criterion, apart from the certificates presented to the petitioner at various exhibitions, the record 
does not document the significance of those exhibitions. Three certificates evidence the petitioner's 
participation in the World Chinese Art Exhibition in 2000, the National Shu-Au-Xian Grand Exhibition in 1995, 
and the China Contemporary Young Artist Masterpieces Exhibition in 1993, but the record does not document 
the venue, scope and selection criteria for these exhibitions or otherwise document their significance. Three 
certificates attest to the etitioner's participation in the Eighteenth Nikkiten lnternational Art Exhibition in P Japan in 1994 and the 59" International Painting Exhibition in Honor of the 30Ih Anniversary of the Founding of 
the Association of International Contemporary Fine Artists in Japan, but the record does not further identify the 
venues or significance of these exhibitions. Two certificates show that the petitioner's work has been collected 
by the China Tianjin Museum in 1993 and the Guangzhou Art College in 1989, but the record contains no 
evidence that these collections have any prominence in China outside of the Tianjin and Guangzhou 
metropolitan regions. Although the petitioner won silver awards at the First Guangdong Movie Pictorial 
Playbill Exhibition in 1987, the record does not identify the venue of this exhibition or demonstrate that it 
received recognition beyond Guangdong province. The petitioner also submitted photographs identified as his 
"Solo Show at Lima, Peru, July 1998," but the record does not further identify the venue or document the 
significance of this exhibition. 
One certificate attests to the petitioner's silver prize at the Third International Golden Swan Art Competition in 
New York in 1999, but again, the record does not document the venue, selection criteria, scope or significance 
of this exhibition. Ten photographs and the four Chinese newspaper articles discussed under the third criterion 
document the petitioner's exhibition in Flushing, New York in 2002. Yet the record does not identify the venue 
of this exhibition or establish that the show was acknowledged outside of the Chinese-American community in 
the New York metropolitan region. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of his participation at four other 
exhibitions in the United States, but we cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition was 
filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. In sum, the relevant evidence does not indicate that the petitioner's work has been exhibited in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
(JX) Evidence that the alien has communded a high saluty or other sign~J;cuntly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner claims that fie is a "millionaire painter in modern China." As evidence of his high income, he 
submits his account statement from HSBC bank of $38,700 and his saving certificate from China Construction 
Bank for 1,800,000yuun (rerr n~in hi). The petitioner claims that his income comes primarily from the sale of 
his paintings, but submits no sales contracts, receipts or other evidence to support this claim. Simply going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of S"i',ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Mutter of Treasure Cruji of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). An "Evaluation Certifition [sic] of Famous Modern Chinese 
Painters and Calligraphers" states that the "experts group of the Editing Committee of the Collection of the Sino 
Calligraphers and Painters Over the World" appraised the price of the petitioner's calligraphy to be 918 yuan 
per square foot and the price of his paintings to be 1,800 yuan per square foot in 1999. Yet the record contains 
no evidence that the petitioner has sold his work at these prices or that such prices are significantly high in the 
petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of two titles to land that he owns in Guangdong, China, but the documents 
do not establish that he purchased the property with the proceeds from the sale of his paintings. The petitioner 
also claims that his income greatly exceeds the "average wage for an employee" in China of 30,000 yuon. The 
relevant comparison in this case is not the average wage of all workers in China, but the income of artistic 
painters in China. The petitioner may be considered wealthy in China, but the record does not establish that his 
income is significantly higher than that of other painters or comparable to painters at the very top of his field in 
China. Accordingly, the petitioner 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international 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 ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.