dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 8, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a photographer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three, and he did not demonstrate that he will continue to work in his area 
of extraordinaiy ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an additional document and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo 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. 
Matter of A-P-
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 two options for 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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-paii 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 "trnth 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 
trne." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner most recently worked as a photographer for two magazines and a broadcasting company 
in I I Georgia. 1 Because he 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner only fulfilled 
two of the evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and artistic display under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record reflects that the Petitioner served on a jury for a television 
fashion contest and displayed his work in magazines and at galleries. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner met the judging and aiiistic display criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills an additional criterion. We have reviewed all of 
the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies 
the requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 The Petitioner indicated on Form G-325A, Biographic Information, that he has not been employed since July 2015. 
2 
Matter of A-P-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on his membership with thel I 
,___ __ ~ ____ __.l<APG). The record contains letters from I I president of 
APG, who confirmed the Petitioner's membership and described APG's eligibility requirements, such 
as a minimum of ten years of professional experience, a minimum of six newspaper covers printed in 
a Georgian popular newspaper, master classes or lectures, existent professional portfolio, and an 
autobiography emphasizing the achievements in depth. In addition,! I stated that APG's 
jury "is drawn from delegates nominated annually by the national organizations within their relevant 
QEP [Qualified European Photographer] and Master QEP holders." On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
an additional letter from I I who provided the professional background for two of APG's 
jury members. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 2 Although! !discussed APG's professional 
experience requirements, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that an applicant's accomplishments or 
achievements rise to the level of "outstanding" consistent with this regulatory criterion. For instance, 
the Petitioner did not establish that condition of a "minimum [of] six newspaper covers printed in [a] 
Georgian popular newspaper with a glossy prinf' is viewed as an outstanding achievement in the field, 
nor did he define or expand upon the "professional portfolio" and "autobiography" requirements. 
Moreover, while I I claimed that two of the jury members are "world recognized," the 
Petitioner did not present supporting evidence reflecting their national or international recognition in 
the field. 
In addition, the record contains screenshots from APG's website, photographers.ge. A further review 
of the website, however, does not corroborate the statements made by I 13 Specifically, 
"the candidate must fill the Application form and submit the electronic version of the signed 
document" and "after covering [the] membership fee his/her status on the pmial will be changed 
(amateur or professional)." Moreover, "[p]rofessional photographer status will be given to a person 
whose income is the source from photographic activity." Thus, according to APG's website, 
membership is based on filing an application and paying the membership fee, and professional 
photographer status is based on source of income. The website does not reveal the membership 
requirements claimed by I I Inconsistencies in the record must be resolved with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the tmth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Umesolved material inconsistencies may lead to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. Here, the 
2 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD 11-14 6-7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
3 Accessed on May 8, 2019, and incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
3 
Matter of A-P-
Petitioner did not submit the bylaws or other similar documentation to support the statements of D 
I I 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that he "was hailed by the former First Lady of Georgial ~======:::;-' as one of the best and top rated photographers in Georgia" and "his Royal Highness I I I I and Princess....._ _________ __.selected [him] as their photographer." The 
Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate how his selection qualifies him as a member of an association 
that requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim 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)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability.4 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, the petitioner bears 
the 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 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-P-, ID# 3097143 (AAO May 8, 2019) 
4 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l){A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he intends to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii). 
4