dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
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. 
.chr'+T Dddclc 
~kobert P. Wiernann. Chief 
v~dministrative ~~~eals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. $ 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and a new document. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold 
the director's decision. In fact, we must withdraw the director's sole favorable finding that the 
petitioner meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) as the record contains no evidence 
to support that finding. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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). 
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 of the 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. 5 204.5(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. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a photographer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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, international 
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. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fro-, Regional Manager of Marketing to 
- 
Consumers for Sony Corporation of Panama, affirming that the petitioner won the company's regional 
contest in digital photography among 12 countries in Latin America in 2001. Specifically, the 
petitioner won in the categories of Architecture, Nature and the Sony grand prize. The letter indicates 
that the purpose of the contest "is to promote the passion of photography and discover new talent in 
those region[s] with individuals who use Sony-Cybershot digital cameras." Finally, the letter states that 
the contest has more than 40,000 participants and is "considered the most important contest in its 
category in the region." A review of business news in La Prensa reports that the contest was part of an 
event to launch Sony's Cybershot DSC-S85 and notes the petitioner's receipt of the Sony Tro h 
review bears no byline and appears to be a press release from Sony. A second letter from 
indicates that the jurors "select the best amateur photographer of the region." 
 Pilbc 
The petitioner also submitted a February 12, 2004 letter addressed: "Dear American Photography 20 
Entrant." This letter advises the entrant that his work would appear on the magazine's website. The 
letter explains that 6,400 images were submitted. The letter explains that the entrant's photograph will 
appear on the website based on receiving two votes. According to the letter, however, the entrant's 
photograph did not receive a majority vote or better to appear in the book. The letter requests a 
payment of a "website fee" for the entrant's photograph to be displayed. The petitioner submitted his 
photograph downloaded from American Photography 20's website. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence about the significance of these honors, the 
petitioner submitted Internet materials about American Photography 20 confirming that selected 
images that receive a majority vote or better appear in the magazine's book and website. As stated 
above, the petitioner's photograph only appeared on the magazine's website. 
The director noted that the Sony prize is limited to those using Sony Cybershot cameras and that it is 
designed to recognize new talent. The director further noted that entrants who are selected to have their 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
photographs displayed on American Photography 20's website must pay a fee. 
 Based on these 
observations, the director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the fact that the contest requires the use of a specific camera "has no 
bearing" on the contest's national or international recognition and that the limitation encourages 
creativity and levels the playing field since all contestants are using the same equipment. Counsel 
further asserts that the petitioner's image was selected to appear in American Photography 20's 
hardcover and website. The petitioner submits the list of six jurors for the American Photography 20 
contest. 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, the record contains no evidence that the Sony Cybershot is a camera 
commonly used by professional photographers. In fact, the record reflects that the contest is designed 
to identify "new talent" and that jurors select the best "amateur photographer." An award from a 
contest for camera owners rather than professional photographers cannot be considered a nationally or 
internationally recognized award in the petitioner's field. The only reference to the contest in the media 
is a press release from Sony appearing in a business review section of La Prensa. There is no evidence 
that any photography or art media covered the award. 
Second, counsel is factually wrong that the petitioner's image appeared in the hardcover book. The 
letter expressly states that the petitioner's image would appear "only" on American Photography 20's 
website. The petitioner does not appear to have garnered the majority votes necessary for inclusion in 
the hardcover book. We are not persuaded that the selection of the petitioner's photograph for 
inclusion on the website if the petitioner agrees to pay the necessary fee is a nationally or internationally 
recognized award or prize. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classijkation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the publication of the petitioner's photographs in magazines serve to meet 
this criterion. We must withdraw this finding as it is contrary to the plain language of the relevant 
regulation. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published 
material about the alien. The petitioner is a professional photographer. He photographs architecture 
and other subjects for stories in magazines. The inclusion of his photographs in magazines as part of 
stories that are not about the petitioner is evidence that the petitioner is capable of earning a living in 
his field. These photographs, while credited to the petitioner, are not included in stories primarily 
"about" the petitioner. Thus, they cannot serve to meet the plain language of the criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record also includes a local newspaper story about an exhibit of photographs of disabled women 
that includes a photo ra h b the petitioner. We note that the project, sponsored by the Miami Ad 
School, was led by e, a Pulitzer Prize winner and that the remaining photographers, 
including the petitioner, were students at the Miami Ad School who donated their time. The article is 
primarily about the exhibit and not the petitioner individually. Moreover, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that articles in the local Miami Herald and Miami New Times about an exhibit in Miami 
constitutes major media coverage of the petitioner. 
In light of the above, the record does not support the director's finding that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. Thus, we must withdraw that finding and conclude that the petitioner has not established that 
he 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 alliedfield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner relies on his participation as a juror of the Sony regional contest in 2002. As discussed 
above, however, this competition is a competition for users of what has not been demonstrated to be a 
professional grade camera. The competition was designed to recognize new talent and jurors picked 
"the best amateur photographer of the region." Once again, if the competitors were merely camera 
owners rather than professional photographers, the petitioner was not judging the work of others "in the 
same or allied field as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in the field. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the recommendation letters secured by the petitioner are "the best 
evidence of [his] prominence in the field of photography." In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, counsel was more specific about the petitioner's alleged contributions, asserting 
that the petitioner's participation in the exhibit of disabled women transformed stereotypes and noting 
that his work appears on the American Photography 20's website and has been utilized by designers, 
architects and artists to display their own work. The director concluded that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated how his professional success is evidence of contributions of major significance to the 
field of photography. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the 
submission of ten reference letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS 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; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id at 795; See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Crap of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of talent and 
ranking in the field are less persuasive than letters that specifically identifl contributions and provide 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition, letters from 
independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who 
have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the 
preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for 
submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should 
be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
While the petitioner submitted several reference letters, all of them are from individuals in Florida. 
Counsel has never explained how letters from such a local group of individuals can establish acclaim 
at the national or international level. We will consider the content of these letters below. 
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. Simple talent and a unique style is not, by itself, a 
contribution of major significance. Rather, to be considered a contribution of major significance in 
the field of photography, it can be expected that the petitioner's work would have already had a 
demonstrable impact on other photographers. 
~irector of Photography at the Miami Ad School, asserts that the petitioner was one 
of his most talented students and is an "outstanding photographer." 
 asserts generally 
that the petitioner enjoys recognition as one of the leading photographers in Venezuela, the United 
hroughout Latin America but provides no examples that demonstrate such recognition. 
a notes that the petitioner is skilled and talented with a unique perspective and 
contemporary approach but does not explain how these characteristics have influenced the field of 
photography as a whole. 
President of the Miami Ad School discusses the reputation of the school itself. Mr. 
generally that the petitioner is one of the most prominent interior and architecture 
photographers in the Americas and characterizes the petitioner's work as "unique." - 
lists some of the publications that have included the etitioner's photographs and notes that the 
petitioner has ten years of experience. Creative Director for FourDiaz Vargas 
in Florida, and the petitioner's longtime photographer friend, provide similar 
information. Once again, talent by itself is not a contribution of major significance to-the field. 
Editor in Chief of Home B Design of the Miami Herald, confirms that the 
petitioner is a contributor to Home & Design and asserts that the petitioner is recognized for his use 
of lighting and colors. 
 further notes the competitive nature of the petitioner's field. 
These general assertions do not address the issue of how the petitioner has contributed to the field of 
photography such that his impact can be seen in the field nationally or internationally. 
Finally, the petitioner also provided letters from one of his models, designers whose work he has 
photographed, a marketer with whom he has worked and a magazine style director with whom he has 
worked. These individuals are not photographers and they do not provide examples of how the 
petitioner has impacted the field of photography. 
The fact that the petitioner is able to make a living in his field is not a contribution to the field. While 
the selection of the petitioner's photograph for the American Photography 20's website may be 
indicative of his talent, the record lacks evidence that the photographs selected for this website have all 
somehow influenced the field of photography as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner is a photographic contributor to various publications. His photographs have also been 
displayed at the Uncensored Life - Raw Beauty exhibit of photographs of disabled women, Art Base1 at 
the Wolfsonian-Florida Internatio 
 a 2001 exhibition at the Ars Forum Galeria de Arte 
(AFGA) and a 2002 workshop for 
 In response to the director's request for evidence of 
the significance of the exhibitions that have included the petitioner's work, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that Uncensored Life - Raw Beautv was on dis~lav at the Ho~e Center in Miami. As noted bv 
I -' 
counsel, 
 confirms that the exhibit may travel nat~onaliy. The record contains nb 
evidence t at t e ex 1 it traveled nationally prior to the priority date, the date as of which the petitioner 
must establish his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (1 2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Cornmr. 197 1). 
The director concluded that Art Base1 included over 1500 artists and that the petitioner had not 
established whether his work was a featured or main event of the exhibition. On appeal, counsel asserts 
- - 
that the director failed to consider the evidence relating to Uncensored Life - Raw Beauty, the 
exhibition at th workshop and the AFGA. 
The evidence submitted to meet any given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with national or 
~ - 
international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. We are not persuaded that 
exhibitions in Miami, where the petitioner was a student and is now working, are indicative of any 
recognition let alone a cl im beyond Florida. 
 The record contains no evidence regarding the 
significance of the 
 workshop or the Ars Forum Art Gallery. Moreover, those exhibitions 
were four and five years before the petition was filed and cannot establish sustained acclaim as of that 
date. 
Finally, the petitioner's photographs appeared in magazines as part of stories on the subjects of those 
photographs. These stories are not artistic exhibitions designed to showcase the petitioner's work. 
Thus, they cannot be considered under this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he 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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
photographer 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 indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent and professional success as a photographer, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.