dismissed EB-1A Case: Paper Folding Art

v.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
Date: OCT 11 Z001Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER
EAC 05 227 50763
PUBLIC COpy
identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarr~ted
invasionof personalpnvacy
FILE:
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
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. § 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.
A~~I Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
,.
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in
the arts. 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.
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.
Section 203(b) ofthe 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.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have
cortsistently 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, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that
small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 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. § 204.5(h)(3).
The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show
that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.
This petition, filed on August 10, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as
a "Paper Folding Artist." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this
Page 3
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.
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). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the
following criteria.
Documentation ojthe alien's receipt ojlesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or
awards Jor excellence in the field ojendeavor.
The petitioner submitted photocopies of the following:
1. "Certificate of Award" from the "President of the Beauty Culture" "for Outstanding Achievement
in Paper Folding Artwork Exhibition in New York." (September 23,2004)
2. "Certificate of Award" from the "Secretary of Korean Handicrafts Association" stating that the
petitioner "won the Golden Prize of the 2002 Korean College Students' Handicrafts Show."
3. "Certificate Art of Award [sic]" from the "Director of Asian Artwork Association" stating that
the petitioner's "artwork has won the First Prize ofthe 2005 Special Asian Artwork Exhibition of
New York."
There is no supporting evidence showing that these awards reflect national or international recognition for
excellence in the field of endeavor rather than local or organizational recognition. The record includes no
infonnation regarding the significance of these awards and the magnitude of the exhibitions and show at
which they were presented. For example, there is no evidence showing the number of awards presented at
these events, the criteria for granting the awards, the level of expertise of those considered, and the number of
individuals eligible to compete. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of
endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of a given criterion. In this case, the petitioner has not
shown that his awards command recognition beyond the presenting organizations consistent with sustained
national or international acclaim in his field.
In light ofthe above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.
Documentation ojthe alien's membership in associations in the field Jor which classification
is sought, which require outstanding achievements ojtheir members, as judged by recognized
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields.
The petitioner submitted his membership certificates for the Paper Folding Association of Korea and the
World Association of Artists, but there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission
requirements) showing that these associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged
by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's or an allied field. As such, the petitioner has
not established that he meets this criterion.
Page 4
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
The petitioner submitted multiple photographic images of what is alleged to be his "Paper Folding Work"
Without further evidence, the petitioner has not established that his artistic creations are among those shown.
Further, the photographic images of the petitioner's creations were not accompanied by evidence (such as an
art brochure or event program) identifying the specific exhibition or showcase in which they appeared. In this
case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's paper creations have been displayed at
significant artistic venues consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would
be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The petitioner's appeal was filed on September 11, 2006. As of
this date, more than one year later, the AAO has received nothing further.
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or
that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established
eligibilitypursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved.
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has also failed to establish that he seeks entry into the
United States to continue work in his alleged area of extraordinary ability, as required by 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of
the Act. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires:
clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise.
Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged
commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she
intends to continue his or her work in the United States.
The record includes no such evidence.
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews
appeals on a de novo basis).
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit
Page 5
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has
not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.