dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography And Art Direction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10894857 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an art director and photographer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.1 
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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally recognized 
award, nor did it demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria . The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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." 4 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 received her degree in photography from I I College of Art and Design and 
currently serves as an art director and photographer working on various projects in the United States 
on her 0-1 nonimmigrant visa. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have met six criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
• (ix), High remuneration for services 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to prizes or awards and the display of 
the alien's work, but that she had not satisfied the criteria associated with published material, judging, 
leading or critical role, and high salary or remuneration. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she 
meets each of the criteria in which the Director found in the negative. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the awards and 
4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
2 
display criteria. Additionally, we conclude that she has also satisfied the judging as well as the 
published material requirements. 
Published material about the alien 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). 
The Petitioner provided several articles about her and relating to her work. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. However, the record supports the 
Petitioner's eligibility claims related to this requirement because she provided aO2018 article from 
InStyle Magazine discussing her and her work in the field. The record also contains circulation 
statistics from Comscore demonstrating this publication, during the time frame the Petitioner's article 
appeared in the magazine, qualifies as major media. The Director appears to have mistaken these 
publication statistics to have originated from InStyle Magazine itself As a result, the Petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion's requirements. 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
Director indicated that some of the material lacked complete translations and discussed various 
shortcomings with the quality of her judging experience. However, we note that the Petitioner 
provided emails that did not require any translation that indicated she had judged three competitions, 
as well as one publication listing her as one of the jury of judges. This sufficiently demonstrates that 
the Petitioner satisfied the basic elements of this criterion's requirements. 
Our above analysis comprises all the criteria that the Petitioner satisfied within part one of this two-step 
adjudicative process. As she has met the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria, it is 
unnecessary that we discuss any additional eligibility claims relating to the regulatory provisions at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. 5 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
5 See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See also 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence 
3 
The Petitioner is an art director and photographer based inl~-----~ She attained her Master of 
Fine Arts in photography and has worked as a photographer and a writer. Her career began as a 
freelance photographer and she published her first photo book in 2016. As indicated above, the 
Petitioner garnered awards, received press coverage, judged others, and displayed her work. The 
record, however, does not demonstrate that her personal and professional achievements rise to a level 
of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 6 
The Petitioner provided evidence of three awards that satisfied the prizes or awards criterion. Those 
included a 2018 gold prize at the com etition. The Petitioner achieved this 
accolade while competing against other professionals in the cate ory. She also earned a 
third-place finish in the 2013 version of this competition as a~----~ The Petitioner did not 
show the prestige or level of 
1
ecognit{on that this competition enjoys. The Petitioner also made a notable 
third-place finish at the 2015 Photography Awards, and she finished in second place at the 2015 
I I Awards. The only material relating to the prestige of these competitions were from a regional 
version of GQ Magazine in Taiwan, self-promotional claims made within documentation from the 
competition itself: or from one lesser-known website, photocompetitions.com. 7 The Petitioner also 
received several honorable mentions at other various photography competitions. It is not apparent that 
the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained acclaim at the requisite national or international level. She has 
not shown that her achievements received significant attention and as a result, has not demonstrated her 
prizes and awards are commensurate with those among the top of her field. 
Regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered material from several organizations relating to her 
and her work. Although two notable articles covered her and discussed her work, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that such press coverage is consistent with the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. 8 Much of the remaining material was from 
local media stations without demonstrating the significance of the program or the radio or television 
station. 9 She also provided work from other regional media with similar shortcomings. Further, the 
Petitioner did not offer material from entities serving similar localities or a similar intended audience 
for us to compare to her localized media coverage, which is required by USCIS policy. 10 
Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM 
Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22. 2010) (Policy Memo). https://www.uscis.gov/ legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating 
that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine 
if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant 
classification). 
6 H.R.Rep.No.101-723,59(Sept.19.1990). 
7 Even though the Petitioner did not present this evidence for consideration under the prizes or awards category, we observe 
that she provided the circulation statistics for GQ Taiwan for 2019. We reiterate that the article discussing her! I 
Photography Award was published in 2015. The Petitioner has not demonstrated this publication's circulation statistics 
from 2019 should apply to the article discussing her 2015 in an attempt to demonstrate national or international recognition 
relating to the competition's prestige or to her award's recognition. 
8 See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
9 Although the Petitioner claimed she was featured in an interview that appeared on! !{the mobile application 
and news aggregator developed byl ~' the record did not support this claim as she only provided pictures with a 
foreign langua:e embedded within the picture and an accompanying translation. She did not show that this material 
appeared onl 11 I 
10 Policy Memo at 7 (noting that published material evidence should establish that the circulation is high compared to other 
circulation statistics and should demonstrate the publication's intended audience). 
4 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not shown that audience or viewer figures for a media outlet from 
several years after a piece about her was published should represent that organization's same audience 
from years earlier. 11 Moreover, the Petitioner presented circulation statistics for some parent 
organizations, rather than the entity that actually published material about her without explaining why 
we should recognize the parent's circulation as the subordinate entity's figures. 12 Ultimately, she did 
not show how her overall media coverage was indicative of a level of success being among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 13 Thus, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the media reporting on her and her activities reflected a career of acclaimed work in the 
field. 14 
Although we did not agree with the Director as it relates to the Petitioner's judging experience under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), it does not appear that she has met the high standard of this 
classification in this final merits determination. While the focus of the Director's analysis under the 
individual criterion did not apply at that stage of the adjudication, much of it is applicable here and 
the weaknesses the Director identified appear to establish that the Petitioner's record of judging falls 
short of the expectations associated with this highly restrictive visa classification. We note that much 
of the evidence under this category was in a foreign language and, as the Director noted, it wasn't 
accompanied by translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and the Petitioner 
has not remedied that on appeal. 
Within the appeal, the Petitioner claims that she judged the work of professional-level photographers. 
The record does not bear out what level of candidates the Petitioner judged other than to reflect that 
she judged material from "a selection of international photographers .... " The Petitioner's judging 
experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the Beneficiary's national 
or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Her experience consists of one competition 
limited to photographers utilizing a certain type of phone camera (i.e., an~--------~ 
smartphone), and two competitions from "a selection of international photographers" at an unspecified 
career level. Without evidence that sets her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she 
has a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed individuals in her field, the 
Petitioner has not shown that her judging experience places her among that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 15 
As noted above, the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). As it is expected that a photographer, such as the Petitioner, would show her work at 
exhibitions and other events, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of her work is reflective of 
acclaim consistent with this highly restrictive classification. We will consider the prestige of both the 
venues and the exhibitions in which she participated. Although the Petitioner's work was displayed at a 
11 This applies to following media outlets where the publication or entity published material about the Petitioner several 
years before the circulation statistics she provided: Gacha Magazine; TVBS News; Art Trade Journal; IPPA Apple Dai~v; 
and FLiPERmag.com. 
12 For Global Views Monthly Magazine and Gacha Magazine the Petitioner only provided statistics for the parent entity, 
and not for these two publications. 
13 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
14 See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
15 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
5 
few intermediate venues, her showings largely consisted of small and local events. She did not establish 
that these are considered prestigious or popular settings, or that her exhibitions garnered attention in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Further, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that her performances brought praise from critics, drew notable crowds, or raised attendance. 
Without evidence distinguishing the Petitioner's shows from others in her field, she has not shown that 
she "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 16 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the 
Petitioner presented three organizations, but failed to demonstrate that she: ( 1) performed in a leading or 
critical role for every organization, and (2) that each entity enjoyed a distinguished reputation. Although 
I I has a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner did not show that she performed in a qualifying role 
for this organization as a whole versus for a smaller entity within the company. To illustrate, within the 
initial filing the Petitioner stated that "she was essential to the success of the~ [sic] I I 
campaigns. As a result of her photography for this campaign, the social media page gained hundreds of 
new followers and provided the company with more exposure." 
The Petitioner has not illustrated how playing a part in an advertisement campaign for a line of 
smartphones is impactful on an entire organization that is a multinational computer hardware and 
consumer electronics company. Nor has she substantiated how this accomplishment shows that she has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her leading or critical role does 
not have to be for the distinguished organization as a whole. First, this position is contrary to multiple 
federal court decisions on this topic. 17 Additionally, performing in a role for a subordinate entity that 
itself does not enjoy a distinguished reputation falls short of the high standard applicable when 
considering whether the Petitioner is among those at the top of her field of endeavor. 
In addition tol l the Petitioner claims the role she performed for I I. This entity began 
as an art gallery in 2010 and expanded into design furniture specializing inl !design. The 
correspondence from this organization primarily discussed how the Petitioner performed in important 
roles for the business but does not demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner only offered articles that discussed her work being displayed at this organization, but none that 
establish this entity is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 18 Performing in a leading or critical 
role for an organization that does not itself have a distinguished reputation does not substantiate her 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Similarly, the Petitioner offered letters froml I a cosmetic company started in 2015. The 
letters from this entity also do not establish that this organization is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. The correspondence from I the company's founder, repeatedly mentions their great 
reputation, but did not explain how they attained that reputation since their founding in 2015 other than 
through financial success. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that this organization's unsubstantiated 
level of financial success should be considered to have earned it a distinguish reputation. The 
16 See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
17 Evidence relating to this requirement must provide specifics relating to how the Petitioner's role was critical to the 
organization as a whole. Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. 
May 31, 2019); Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535,545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 
18 Policy Memo, supra at 10--11. 
6 
documentation the Petitioner submitted does not indicate that she is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of her field. 
Finally, we tum to whether the record reflects the Petitioner has earned a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration consistent with this restrictive visa classification. First, we note the Petitioner provided 
compensation figures for two currencies; U.S. dollars and Taiwan dollars. She only demonstrated that 
she earned compensation in the form of Taiwan dollars through her translated Taiwanese income tax 
returns. USCIS policy provides that "[ a ]liens working in different countries should be evaluated based 
on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country, rather than by simply converting the salary 
to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States." We 
note that the Petitioner did not offer any material relating to salaries or remuneration for art directors or 
photographers in Taiwan. Consequently, the Petitioner's comparisons to earnings data for the United 
States is not in compliance with agency policy. 
Alternatively, we note a statement within a letter from the Taiwanese company! l that they paid the 
Petitioner 200 U.S. dollars per hour for her work, and this was significantly higher than the average hourly 
wage for the Art Directors profile found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook. The Petitioner has not shown that this one instance of hourly earnings 
should equate to that same wage allocated at an annual rate. We do not extrapolate this one instance of 
eight hours of work (resulting in 50,000 Taiwan dollars on the Petitioner's 2016 income tax returns, or 
approximately $1,621 in U.S. currency) to an equivalent annual salary. And even if we were to make 
such a presumption, one instance of being well-paid for work in the field is not representative of sustained 
acclaim on a national or international level. The Petitioner has not provided information that establishes 
her earnings as reflective "of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
In summary, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. 19 The Petitioner's evidence confirms that she has received attention 
from those in her field. However, considering the full measure of the Petitioner's ability and 
achievements, the level of her national or international acclaim and the extent to which her achievements 
have been recognized in the field are not indicative of a record of sustained acclaim. Also, she has not 
submitted extensive documentation exhibiting she has attained a level of expertise placing her among that 
small percentage that has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden here. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
19 Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
7