dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-.1-S-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 15,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140,1MMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a photographer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). 
This tirst preference classi !)cation 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 tield through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Forn1 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not satisfy, as required, at least three of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation, stating that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. In addition, he maintains that he has established eligibility for the 
classitication. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified foreign nationals 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 tield through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) · the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benctit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Mcmer (!( T-.1-S-K-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options tor satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of th~ ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(i)-(x) (including i!cms 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 in a final merits deterrnination 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. 201 0) (discussing a 
t\VO-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 Vis;nscnia v. Beers, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.O.C. 2013); Rija/ v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. 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 b'y 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." JVIat!er of 
Chmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a fashion photographer. As he has not established his receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, as initial evidence he must present documents satisfying at least 
three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets the lesser awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the 
published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions criterion 
under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C. F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(J)(viii). We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings, and it does not support a 
tinding that he meets the plain language requirements of at least' lhree criteria. 
Documentarian of the alien's receipJ (~f lesser nationally or inrernaNonally recognized prizes or . 
awardsfiJr excellence in the .field qf endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The. Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, and the record supports this 
finding. The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he served as a photographer on an 
advertising campaign that won a which honors the ': 
However, a healthcare communications company, 
won this award for their advertising campaign entitled ' Although the Petitioner is listed 
under a section entitled "Talent Credits" as a photographer on this campaign, he did not submit 
2 
.
Mmter rd' T-.1-S-K-
evidence that he \vas one of the recipients. Moreover, the are presented for excellence 
in the field of healthcare advertising not the field of photography, his receipt of such an award, had this 
been established, would not satist)• this criterion. 
Published materia! about the alien in pn?fessiona/ or major lrade publications· or other major 
media. relating to rhe alien ·s work in the field for which classifh:ation is soughr. Such evidence 
shall include 1he IiTle. date. and awhor o_( the mal erial. and any necessary lranslation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner has offered a number of articles relating to both his personal life and his work as a 
photographer; however, none of these articles satist~' this criterion. For example, the Petitioner 
submitted an article published in that is about his wedding, but this 
article docs not satisfy this criterion because it relates solely to his personal life and not his 
photography \vork. He also submits articles from a surfing blog, and the online portal 
for a clothing retailer, that discuss his work, but these do not provide all of the information required 
by the regulation. An interview 1ranscript under the heading of was submitted, but this 
document neither identifies the author, the date of publication, or the subject of the interview. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that and . qualify as professional or 
trade publications or other major media. 
Similarly, he submitted copies of features that appeared in 
and all of which also appear to be Internet websites. Most of these excerpts 
simply quote or mention the Petitioner, as 'opposed to discussing his work, and those excerpts that do 
discuss his professional accomplishments omit the author's name. Even if the submitted excerpts 
otherwise qualified as published material about the Petitioner, he did not demonstrate they are 
professional or major trade publications, or other major media. 
Evidence (d. the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athlelic. or business-related 
conlrihutionr of major significance in !hejie!d 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he "is renowned as a master of the fashion editorial," and 
asserts that he belongs to a small percentage of photographers who possess this artistry and technical 
mastery. He contends that numerous testimonials submitted on his behalf were disregarded by the 
Director, and relies on the statements provided therein as evidence of his original artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
He submitted a letter from award winning fashion designer and founder of 
who stated that the Petitioner "is masterful capturing each and every one of his 
subjects' unique beauty, and creating an unforgettable image." A letter from Creative 
Director at states that the Petitioner has shot acclaimed 
magazine covers and fashion editorials. , Creative Director at 
states that the Petitioner "is in a league of his own" and has depended on him to shoot its most 
high-profile ad campaigns. While it is clear that others in the industry admire his work, and that he 
3 
.
Mauer 4 T-.l-S-K-
has performed satisfactory work for his clients, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate his 
impact in the field as a whole, or confirm that his influence qualities as "major significance." The 
letters lack specificity of how the Petitioner's achievements have affected the field or that his style of 
photography is being used or reproduced within his field. 
Although the record shows that he is an experienced photographer, it does not support a finding that 
he has made contributions of major signiticance in the field. \\fhile he claims that the "fashion 
editorial" is his specialty, and has submitted numerous examples of his work as published in various 
· magazines and advertising campaigns, the record does not indicate the extent of the Petitioner's 
influence on other fashion photographers working in the field, nor does it show that the field has 
significantly changed as a result of his work. While the Petitioner has earned the admiration of his 
references and colleagues, the record does not demonstrate that he has made original artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence (~l the di:.play of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or shotvcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Although not asserted by the Petitioner, we find upon de novo review that he has met this criterion. 
The Petitioner's work has appeared in lifestyle and fashion magazines, including 
and When publishing his photographs, these 
publications credited him as the photographer. He therefore meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has per.fhrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "he has played and will continue to play the critically important 
role of photographer on high-protile assignments for some of today's most distinguished magazines, 
fashion labels, retailers, and global brands." Documents in the record indicate that he has created 
fashion editorials for a number of publications and organizations, including 
women's lifestyle magazine published by 
a weekly 
and He, however, has not shown that he performed a leading or critical role for these 
entlttes. The record indicates that the Petitioner is not an employee of any of the named publications 
or organizations; rather, he performs his photography on a freelance basis. Although the record 
contains testimonials from several of the publications explaining why he was chosen to photograph 
particular campaigns, the evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him from the 
numerous other freelance photographers also contributing their work and talents to these 
publications and organizations. Although the Petitioner has worked as a photographer for these 
entities, he has not demonstrated how he led them, or how his periodic contributions were critical to 
their success or standing. 
The record also contains evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's photography was included in 
advertising campaigns for various fashion labels and designers, including 
4 
.
}vfaller of.T-.1-S-K- · 
and Although the Petitioner contends that his work for these distingu ished 
organizations was "critical to the success of high-profile advertorials , advertising campaigns, look 
book s and ecommerce," the reco rd lacks corroborating evidence . While the record contains 
testimonials from representatives of variou s organizations praising the quality of his work and 
affirming that they rout ine ly choose him to work on their campaigns based on his skill and 
reputation within the industry , they do not identify how his contributions are attributable to the 
success of the se organizations. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the achievements of these 
entities are the result of a critical role he perform ed for them. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petition er is not eligible for the classification because he has not submitted the required init ial 
evidence of either a one-time achieve ment or documents that mee t at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully addre ss the totality of the materials in 
a final merits deter mination . Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheles s, we have reviewed the 
record in the aggregate , conclud ing that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the level of experti se required for the classi tication soug ht. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as 1Vfafler ufT-.1-S-K-, ID# 965338 (AAO Mar. 15, 2018) 
5