dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16692207 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a photographer, seeks classification as an alien 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 petlt10n, concluding that the record 
demonstrated that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it did 
not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 
international 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 criteria 
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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a photographer who has displayed his work at exhibits mainly in China and Europe. 
He s~ates that he w~sh_e~ to continuf to work as a photographer in the United States, with the goal of 
openmg an art stud10 ml._ ____ __._ 
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 four of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
awards, published material about him and his work, the display of his work at artistic exhibitions, and 
his service as a judge of the work of other photographers. However, the Director then concluded that 
the totality of the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage of 
photographers at the top of the field, and thus was not eligible as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence in the 
record in making his determination. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Director's 
conclusion regarding the Petitioner's satisfaction of four of the evidentiary criteria, and will therefore 
turn to the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that he meets that standard. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has submitted evidence that his photographs have been displayed at 
several artistic exhibitions. The record shows that he first began exhibiting his work in 2015 at theD 
Photography Exhibition, and his work has continued to be displayed '----------------' 
2 
in China at exhibitions such asl I in in 2017 and 2018, thd !Photography Festival in 
201 7 and 2019, and the I I F oto F es ti val in 2018. His work has also been shown at several 
exhibitions outside of China including the~------.======,-~of Photography I I 
( h lhel ~ [ Photographic Exhibition, th~ !Photographic Circuit, and the 
I~. ---~!Photographic A~ I, all in 2016. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that several of these exhibitions included photographs from only the 
top artists in the field, which he asserts places him among that group. For instance, regarding the 
exhibition in I I he submitted an article from the website of one its organizers, the 
which notes that "most of these photorraphersl 
are gold medal winners in various international photography competitions and are part of the 
Photography Art team in China." The Petitioner also highlights the acceptance of his work to be 
displayed at thel I exhibition, noting that 203 photographs out of 2310 submitted were 
accepted and citing the statement from the exhibition's website that it is "one of the most highly 
regarded exhibitions in the UK." However, we note that the record does not include information about 
these exhibitions from independent sources, and thus lacks evidence to show that they are considered 
to be prestigious by the international photography community. This is also the case with thd I 
Photographic Circuit and some of the Chinese exhibitions in which the Petitioner participated. 
Regarding the display of the Petitioner's work at the 20181 I Foto Festival, he submitted 
evidence demonstrating that both the festival and his photographs garnered attention. Fisheye, a 
French photography magazine, published a brief article discussing his series I I which was 
exhibited at the festival. The author writes that the Petitioner is "one of the photographers who are 
beginning to be known in China," and describes his photographs o~ I by stating 
that he 
~------------------------' A major work to understand today's China." 
Another French publication, Le Figaro, ublished a much Ion er article about the festival, and briefly 
describes the Petitioner's exhibit as L_ _________ ....------1--_J' In addition, China 
Photo Press devoted an article about both of his displays at th....__ __ ____. Foto Festival, discussing 
~-----------~ The author writes that the Petitioner's "photographing of wonders 
is actually culturally significant ... " and that with both of these projects, "he has gripped the deepest 
and most central disease of the current society." Information about all three of these publications is 
in the record. Le Figaro is a well-known major newspaper, but as stated only briefly describes the 
Petitioner's work. On the other hand, while Fisheye and China Photo Press focus on photography and 
devoted more space to discussing the Petitioner's work, the limited information provided about them 
in the record does not demonstrate their reach and the impact they have within the field of photography. 
Nevertheless, taken as a whole, this evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's work was exhibited at 
an important international exhibition in successive years and, as a result of his work's appearance at 
the most recent of these, garnered a certain level of international acclaim as a result. 
The Petitioner also submitted reference letters from two co-founders of the Museum of 
Photography who also both play a role for thel IFoto Festival. ~-~---~states that he 
became aware of the Petitioner's work through the festival, and describes his ~-------~ noting that he "is one of the very few members in the Chinese photography field who have the courage 
to use their works to criticize and challenge" the Chinese government. He also writes that the 
Petitioner "is one of the Chinese photographers who have aggrandized public recognition." 
3 
,,___--, _ _.~s colleague at thel I museum, and founder and director of the festival, is D 
.__ _ ___,I She writes thatl l'has attracted widespread attention and unanimous praise from 
experts and media from home and abroad" after bein exhibited at the festival and that he "is the first 
photographer in China to .__ ___ ----r-----...,.._ ________________ ____. 
I t She also describes,__ ____ _, and concludes by listing publications in which 
the Petitioner's work has been featured. However, we note that the record does not include evidence 
of media attention or discussion of his work beyond that which has already been discussed. These 
letters serve to confirm that the Petitioner's exhibitions at thel IFoto Festival drew attention 
and were considered by some to be a highlight of the festival. 
As a result of his participation in these exhibitions, the Petitioner also received several awards for his 
work. At the 2016 I I he received a PSA (Photographic Society of America) Gold Medal 1 
for I I' in thel I category for his photograph I I This work also 
resulted in the Petitioner receiving a I I Award for Chinese Art" in the same year. An 
article posted on the website www.fengniao.com describes a ceremony and includes a list of nominees 
and winners for thel ~ Award for Chinese Art. This article indicates that 29 photographers 
were given this award in 2016, 4 received the "Bole Award" and 5 received the "lifetime photography 
achievement award." The article further states that "nominees for the award must have already 
obtained the highest awards in various art activities and competitions ... ," that candidates for the award 
may apply and are limited to "Chinese living in China and abroad," and that over the course of 4 award 
periods over 10 years, moje than 1 QQ ubTographers have received the award. In addition, the article 
describes nominees for th ~-----~-Award for Chinese Art as "the future of Chinese Art," while 
the awardees are "the pioneers and leaders of Chinese Art" and the 50 photographers who have 
received the lifetime achievement award over the same period are "masters who have reached the peak 
of their own careers." The number of awards given at each event and the fact that the award received 
by the Petitioner is not the top award at the event indicates that he is not one of the small percentage 
of photographers at the top of his field on a national or international scale. Further, although the 
Petitioner submitted articles describing later instances of thd I A ward for Chinese Art 
ceremony that were posted to popular Chinese web portals, this was the only article submitted 
regarding the fourth edition in 2016, and the record does not include information about the website 
where it was posted. 
Related to thel I Award for Chinese Art is another honor received by the Petitioner in 
201 7, the 1 I Chinese Photographers Award." An article posted on artron.net indicates 
that this award is sponsored by the organizers of the I I Award for Chinese Art and is "one 
of the series of activities" involved with that award. The article also identifies that organization as its 
source, indicating that it is a press release or similar material. Further, it states that this was the first 
year that this award was given, and that the organizinf committee ranked a total of 334 applicants in 
5 different categories, with the Petitioner placed in the _ I' category. A different 
article regarding the 2019 edition of these awards, posted on pop-photo.com, explains that candidates 
are ranked based upon a point system, with points given for the receipt of awards at photography 
competitions, membership in photography associations, and the publication of a candidate's work. 
1 We note that the record includes references to photography medals associated with multiple photography associations 
which were also awarded at some of the festivals in which the Petitioner participated. With the lack of information in the 
record regarding these associations and the type, level and number of medals with which they are associated, 
4 
Notably, the highest number of available points is awarded to recipients of thd I Award 
for Chinese Art, along with other awards about which no information is provided. These materials 
indicate that this ranking is therefore not based upon an independent evaluation of the quality or artistic 
value of the candidate's work, but is instead a measure of their activity and previous recognition 
received at photography competitions in the previous year. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of his receipt of additional awards for his work as a 
photographer, including a~ Gold Medal and I O I awards from thel I in 
2016 (part of the I I Photographic Circuit) and a I I Award at the I I 
International Photography Exhibition in 2019. Regarding the first of these, the record includes a 
description of a later instance of the I I Photographic Circuit from its own website, a list of accepted 
photographers and photographs for the 2016 edition of thd I Salon, and a certificate for the 
Petitioner's receipt ofthel b award. The website page indicates that more than 500 awards 
are granted, presumably across all four salons, and that this includes "Best of Salon" and "Best of 
Circuit" awards. While the Petitioner's receipt of these awards demonstrates some level of 
recognition, he did not receive the highest awards at this event, and the record does not include 
evidence of recognition beyond the event and its organizers. In addition, as with the~ Gold Medal 
mentioned above, the record does not include information about these photography associations and 
the number and type of medals and other awards issued by them. This evidence is therefore 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's relative standing in the field outside of the events in which 
they were awarded. Similarly, the information concerning thel I Award is limited to a 
certificate and information from a website with an unknown affiliation. 
In addition to the evidence of the display of his work at exhibitions, the Petitioner also submitted 
evidence that shows that some of his photographs were placed in the collections of artistic institutions. 
Specifically, one certificate indicates that five photographs of thd I series (presumably 
referring to thel beries discussed above) were transferred to the collection ofthJ I 
Academy of Arts as part of a donation agreement in 2019, and another certificate states that one of the 
Petitioner's photographs was collected b~ !University in China in 2017. We note that although 
the Petitioner initially asserted that this evidence demonstrated that he had made original artistic 
contributions of major significance, he did not focus on it in responding to the Director's notice of 
intent to deny or on appeal. Further, although the evidence indicates that both are reputable 
institutions, it does not establish that the collection of the Petitioner's photographs is a high honor or 
is indicative of acclaim for his work at the highest levels. 
After his success at the aforementioned exhibitions, the Petitioner served as a judge at the 201 7 ._I _ __. 
~-----~~ Photography Art Exhibition. He submitted a letter from this organization which 
verifies his service as a judge, and an article posted on sohu.com by I t indicates 
that this exhibition is hosted by the I I Photography Museum and been held annually since 2010. 
This evidence shows that he is considered to be an expert in photography and has achieved some level 
of recognition. However, it does not establish that this exhibition is prestigious or that selection as a 
judge for this exhibition is reserved for those photographers at the top of the field. 
As noted above, in order to establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, the Petitioner 
must show that he has been the subject of sustained national or international acclaim, that he is one of 
that small percentage who has risen to the top of his field, and that his achievements have been 
5 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. The evidence demonstrates that he began 
exhibiting his work in 2015, and that he received awards for his work in international competitions 
the following year. However, it does not show that these initial awards were considered to be 
presti,ious, or that his receipt of them placed him among top photographers. The Petitioner's receipt 
of the IA ward for Chinese Art and , I Chinese Photographers Award in 
201 7 show that he was receiving acclaim for his work at the national level, and his participation as a 
judge of other photographer's work at a single exhibition demonstrates that his expertise as a 
photographer had begun to be recognized. More recently, the attention given to the 20181 I 
Foto Festival, and in particular to the display of the Petitioner's collections there, illustrates a growing 
level of appreciation and notice of the Petitioner's work in the field of photography. However, the 
evidence does not establish that he has enjoyed sustained acclaim at the national or international level, 
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. 
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. USCTS 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). In this case, 
although the evidence shows that the Petitioner has raised his standing among his peers in the field of 
photography, it does not establish that he is yet one of that small percentage at the top of the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6