dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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 petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met 
the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider evidence in the record. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 
Matter of W-C-
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) 
( 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized awards, published material about him and his work, and the authorship of scholarly articles 
in his field. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that it meets the requisite three 
evidentiary criteria, but does not establish the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim 
and that he is one of that small percentage at the very top of the field of photography. 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of five awards in the field of photography for which he was either 
selected or nominated. Because the plain language of this criterion calls for receipt of prizes or awards, 
nomination or selection as a finalist for an award is not considered qualifying under this criterion. 
Therefore, the evidence showing that he and his wife were "short-listed" for thel IA ward 
for photo books in 2016 forl l and for the 20161 I Photography A ward, does 
not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
1 The Director found that the evidence submitted under each of the evidentiary criteria claimed by the Petitioner included 
foreign language documents which were not accompanied by certified English translations as required under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(3). Upon review, we have determined that unless otherwise noted, the foreign language documents in 
the record have been properly translated in accordance with the regulation. 
2 
Matter of W-C-
Also submitted was evidence that the Petitioner received two "Outstanding Works of Art" awards for 
the photographs he submitted to the I I Photography Exhibition in I I 2010. 
Supporting evidence indicates that they were among 80 such awards in the Art category that year, and 
that a single "Master Collection" prize and ten "Collection" prizes were also awarded. In addition, 
the evidence indicates that both the call for submissions for the exhibition and the announcement of 
the awards were posted on Tencent News, but does not provide sufficient information about the 
specific website or location where these notices appeared to support the degree of recognition these 
awards received. Further, the resumes of three other photographers who were awarded at the 
exhibition were also submitted, but only one of these resumes mentions the award. This evidence does 
not sufficiently demonstrate that these two awards received by the Petitioner are nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Evidence of two additional awards received by the Petitioner was also submitted. These are the 2015 
~ New Talent Award and the 2016 I I Emerging Photographers Award. This evidence 
indicates that the photographs submitted for both of these awards were judged by a panel of well­
known experts in the field, that the Petitioner's receipt of these awards received coverage in 
professional and major media, and that the work was subsequently displayed in public venues. As 
such, this evidence establishes that the Petitioner 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) 
Copies of several articles obtained from websites were submitted as evidence in support of the 
Petitioner's qualification under this criterion. Some of these, such as the two articles from Lens 
Culture, were not about the Petitioner and his work, either because they were written by him or because 
the focus of the material was a larger group of artists. Others, including materials from Vice China, 
IMA Magazine.I !Center, Xitek, and Guyu Report, are about the Petitioner and his work, and 
generally include examples of his photographs, but the evidence does not establish that all of these 
can be considered as professional, major trade or other major media. For instance, the material from 
I lcenter, which details a solo exhibit of the Petitioner's photographs in its gallery, originates 
from its social media page (WeChat.) But the evidence does not establish that the primary audience 
for this media consists of professional photographers, as opposed to art enthusiasts or the general 
public, or that this particular format generates sufficient readership to qualify as major media. 
Similarly, the media from IMA Magazine includes both a short article about the Petitioner which 
appeared in the print version and a longer version on its website. However, the evidence about the 
magazine indicates that it is written for photography connoisseurs and collectors rather than 
photographers, and that its relatively limited circulation does not reach a wide enough audience for it 
to be considered as major media. The evidence concerning the websites for Xitek and Guyu Report 
also include insufficient evidence to establish those media as one of the qualifying types under this 
criterion. 
3 
Matter of W-C-
The evidence from the media kit of VICE China, which indicates that its website and social media 
platforms have millions of subscribers and tens of millions of visitors, is sufficient to establish it as 
major media. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner meets this criterion based upon the article about 
him and his work which appeared in that publication. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner submitted several reference letters from experts in the field, including professors, 
curators and fellow photographers. 2 I I of the University of I I 
.c=]writes that she encountered the Petitioner's workl I when it was exhibited at the 
L__jPhotography Festival in 2016, and has included imag~f af this work in her lectures about 
trends in photography. I I also states that she considers .... L ___ ___,_ as "part of the cutting 
edge of global artistic practice." 
Deputy Director of thJ I art museum in Beijing, indicates that he 
~-----::-----=-:-:--------::----.==------=---. 
m~etitioner at the Photo ra hy Festival, and selected his work for a group exhibition 
atL_J in 2018. He writes that~ ___ _,"is an exceptional art practice in contemporary China," 
and compares it to the work of other "leading international artists." 
Another letter in the record is from I I a photography researcher and curator, who selected the 
Petitioner and his wife among eight artists for a project displayed in thel I Museum. 
Similarly J I explains how he selected! I for a solo exhibit atl lcenter. Other 
letters praise the Petitioner's work and confirm its display and awards received. 
These letters confirm that the Petitioner's original work I I has been awarded and displayed 
at artistic venues, but they do not establish that it is a contribution of major significance in the field of 
photography. In particular, while some of them compare this work to that of famous photographers, 
they do not suggest that it has influenced the work of other photographers or otherwise made an impact 
upon the field of photography. Therefore, this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
In his decision, the Director found that the evidence of the Petitioner's books,.__ ______ ___, 
I I andl I did not meet this criterion because it did not 
establish their scholarly nature. The Director noted that scholarly articles are typically written for 
2 We thoroughly reviewed all of the reference letters in the record, but not all of the letters are analyzed in this decision. 
4 
Matter of W-C-
learned individuals and report on original research or philosophical discourse. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that this represents too narrow an interpretation of what constitutes a scholarly 
article, and that these books, as well as the Petitioner's article about I I which was published 
in Lens Culture, as comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). That provision 
allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to an individual's occupation. 3 
When submitting evidence that it wishes to be considered as comparable evidence, a petitioner should 
explain why they have not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth 
in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence they have included is "comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 4 
Here, the Petitioner has in fact presented evidence which meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not explained why these materials, which consist in two cases of 
collections of personal photographs with an autobiographical narrative, should be considered as 
comparable to scholarly articles published in professional or major trade media or other major media. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that this evidence should be considered as comparable 
evidence under this criterion, or that it otherwise establishes that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets this criterion. Based upon the evidf nce of the display of 
the Petitioner's work in a solo exhibition at I . I Center, group exhibition at I Museum, 
and in several national and international photography festivals, we agree with the Director. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As detailed above, the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence and established that he 
meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We will 
therefore evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage of photographers at the 
very top of the field. In a final merits determination, we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
extraordinary ability. 
We first note that while the regulation requires sustained acclaim in order to demonstrate extraordinary 
ability, the evidence indicates that acclaim for the Petitioner's work has been relatively short-lived. 
Although his work was initially recognized in 2010 with what the record indicates were lesser awards, 
he did not achieve higher-level national acclaim until 2015, with I I receiving nationally­
recognized awards and appearing in solo and group exhibitions, mainly in China. Also, it is only this 
earlier work that has been recognized by prizes or awards; the Petitioner's later work, including his 
book.__ ____ __. and the material created for exhibition at the I IMuseum, has received 
some level of media attention, but the evidence does not demonstrate that it has been a critical or 
commercial success. For instance, a portion of I I was posted on the English language 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
4 Id. 
5 
Matter of W-C-
website of Sina News, which the evidence indicates "aggregates feeds from other news providers," 
and a "report of tax" states that the book has sold slightly more than half of the 5000 copies printed. 
But this evidence, which is not accompanied by readership or comparative sales data, does not show 
that the media attention or book sales relating to this work reached a level sufficient to establish 
national or international acclaim. 
Similarly, the evidence indicates that the Petitioner's solo exhibition of J I at I I Center, 
and the display o ~-----------------~in a group exhibition at the I I D Museum, both received some coverage in arts media in China. However, these exhibits took 
place in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and thus do not establish that the display of the Petitioner's work 
has garnered national or international acclaim over a sustained period. 
In addition, although the evidence of media coverage confirms that the awards the Petitioner received 
forl I were recognized on the national level, it does not establish that those awards were top 
awards open to all professional photographers. Both the 2015 □New Talent Award and the 2016 
I I Emerging Photographers Award are limited to young or previously unknown 
photographers, 5 thereby excluding more experienced or well-known artists from consideration. This 
evidence does not therefore establish that the Petitioner is one of that small percentage at the top of 
his field, as opposed to one of the top few young or emerging photographers. 
Upon review of all of the evidence in the record, it is apparent that the Petitioner's photography has 
been noticed and appreciated in arts circles in China, and to a lesser extent in the general public. This 
includes reference letters from experts in the field who praise his work, describe him as a "promising 
young artist," and predict that he would continue to produce exceptional photography in the United 
States. However, the evidence of record does not establish that he has sustained acclaim as a 
photographer, or that he has risen to be one of the few photographers at the very top of the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, but a review of the totality of the evidence does 
not establish that he has achieved the requisite sustained national or international acclaim and is among 
the small percentage of photographers at the very top of the field. For these reasons, the Petitioner 
has not shown that he qualifies for classification 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. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 The "call for photos" for the I I Emerging Photographers A ward statef-1baf one requirement is that entrants 
"having [sic] no experience of solo exhibition," and similar evidence relating to theLJNew Talent Award indicates that 
eligible entrants must be Chinese, younger than 35 years old and have used a Canon camera. 
6 
Matter of W-C-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of W-C-, ID# 3817161 (AAO Aug. 19, 2019) 
7