dismissed EB-1A Case: Sculpture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTEROF P-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sculptor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief, stating that she meets at least three 
criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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 
Matter of P-A-
(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 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 it fulfills the required number of criteria, is 
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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence, we will determine whether the totality of the record shows 
sustained national or international acclaim such that the individual is among the small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a sculptor who has displayed her artwork at exhibitions and events in various 
countries. 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only 
the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204:5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also 
meets the 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), and the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 1 We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and it does not suppoti a finding that the Petitioner 
meets at least three criteria. 
1 
Although she previously claimed eligibility for the leading or critical role. criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
on appeal the Petitioner states that she "concedes that the evidence she submitted did not satisfy this criterion." 
Accordingly, we will not address this criterion in this decision. 
2 
.
Matter of P-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
award'ifor excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner offered a from the 
She did not, however, support the record with evidence that her 
certificate is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. The Petitioner's 
receipt of a prize or award is insufficient to meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion 
without documentation establishing its national or international recognition for excellence by the 
field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots indicating that she was on the shortlist of over 24 
artists being considered for the 2011 She did not, 
however, establish that she received an award or 
prize from the competition, and didnot demonstrate 
that it is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. 
Further, the Petitioner presented a certificate from the 
reflecting that she received an ' 
The record contains a letter from 
for her work, 
secretary general for 
who described the selection criteria, jury composition, and reputation. 
also indicated that the Petitioner's art piece received an honorable mention due to 
its "outstanding artistic quality" and its selection to the academy's permanent collection. The 
Petitioner did not offer independent, objective evidence showing that an honorable mention by 
is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
indicating that her sketch and model have been approved by the selection committee, along 
with a partial letter reflecting that "[t]he international jury selected your sculpture as the [blank] 
winner from among the 20 works created by artists who participated in the · A letter from 
art critic and panelist at states the Petitioner received an award but 
does not identify what award she won. The Petitioner did provide a newspaper article 
indicating that she "received prize" at Although stated that "is a 
major international art award that attracts global competition," is a symposium and it is unclear 
as to whether he meant that acceptance to present work at is a major award or that a prize from 
is a major award. Regardless, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient documentation to 
establish that her prize constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
.
Matter of P-A-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classification 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). 
interview, entitled ' The Petitioner submitted a transcript of her 
which was published on 
showing that it constitutes major media. 
and she provided documentation 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that she meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fzc. scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o.fmajor sign(fzcance in the.fzeld. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that she presented certificates of honor to support her claim of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. A review of the record reflects that she submitted 
honor awards that: confirm her artwork was accepted and exhibited by the 
acknowledge her partnership at the and 
recognize her artwork at the In addition, she provided a 
for her attendance at the 
Furthermore, the Petitioner offered the previously discussed · from the 
Although the certificates indicate her participation and 
acknowledge her artwork at exhibitions 
and events, they do not demonstrate that she has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner did not show, for example, 
how her artwork and participation at these events impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The record also contains recommendation letters from her peers. In general, the letters highly praise 
the Petitioner's artistic skills and refer to her "unique" and "diverse" talents. In addition, the letters 
describe the various events and venues where her art has been displayed, and several mention her 
current employment with where she works on projects in the company's studio. 
The letters, however, do not explain how her skills and talents, exhibitions, and employment are 
considered original contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse or unique skill 
set is not in-and-of-itself a contribution of major significance, unless a petitioner shows that she has 
used those skills to impact or influence the field; in this case, the Petitioner has not made such a 
showing. In addition, the letters do not explain how her exhibitions and employment have impacted 
the field in significant manner. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the US CIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
4 
.
Matter of P-A-
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. users need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990). Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 Petitioner documented the display of her work at artistic exhibitions. For instance, her work 
was shown at the Thus, the 
Director concluded that she satisfied this criterion, and the Petitioner's documentation supports that 
finding. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies two of the regulatory criteria, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vii). As a result, 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 listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence in the context of whether it demonstrates that the 
individual "bas sustained national or international acclaim" such that she is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements "have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCrS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
users from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard­
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the 
office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
c: 
Matter of P-A-
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-A-, ID# 2681'94 (AAO Apr. 10, 2017) 
6