dismissed EB-1A Case: Sculpture And Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTEROFY-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 27,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sculptor and architect, seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary 
I 
ability" in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner contends he meets more than 
three criteria based on his awards, association memberships, scholarly articles, leadership role for his 
company, and artistic contributions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states: · 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
' 
l 
Matter of Y-G-
(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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifYing evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 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 under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not stated or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien'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 initially submitted a portfolio containing photographs of his various award 
certificates, but the accompanying English language translations in the portfolio were not certified 
by the translator. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-G-
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she 
is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
' 
For example, the portfolio included a December 201 0 certificate of honor from the editorial 
committee of the inviting the Petitioner 
as a "special master" for an arts exhibition commemorating the anniversary of 
birth. In addition, a December 201 0 award certificate in the portfolio stated that the 
Petitioner won a ' Although the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) informed the Petitioner that all non-English 
language 
documents required properly certified English language translations, he did not provide such 
translations for the two aforementioned certificates. Because the Petitioner did not submit properly 
certified English language translations for the preceding two 
Chinese language award certificates, 
we cannot determine whether the documents support his claims. Regardless, the Petitioner did not 
offer supporting evidence showing that the two awards constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence 
in the field. 
With regard to the remaining 13 certificates from the portfolio, the Petitioner's response to the RFE 
included a single "Certificate of Translation" from the translator attesting to her competency)n 
English and to the accuracy of the "Awards and Exhibitions"' translations. The "Certificate of 
Translation" listed seven items including "Awards and Exhibitions," but lacked any further 
specificity regarding any of the translated documents. The submission of a single translation 
certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly 
accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ). 
Nonetheless, the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence demonstrating that any of the 13 
certificates are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. For instance, one of the certificates stated that the Petitioner's work ' 
was "selected to attend of the 
1990). Another certificate indicated that the Petitioner "supported and sponsored the 
through his "donation of In addition, an 2008 "Certificate 
of Participation" noted that the Petitioner's "work was displayed in the exhibition 
going with for held at 
The record does not include documentation showing that the aforementioned 
certificates are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in sculpting, rather 
than just acknowledgments of the Petitioner's participation in the exhibitions or his donation of art 
work. 
The Petitioner provided a document listing and describing his 13 award certificates, but he has not 
submitted accompanying evidence demonstrating that his certificates were recognized on a national 
or international level. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-G-
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 initially submitted his membership credentials for the 
and the without providing 
certified English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). In 
response to the Director's RPE, the Petitioner provided a document listing the application 
requirements: 
1. Agree with constitution and will to join in 
2. Skilled craftsman with medium-grade professional title or above 
3. Have high school degree or above and have at least five-years work experience 
4. People have invention, significant science and technical achievement or monograph 
5. Government leaders who supports [sic] our career and works at arts and crafts area 
Although the single "Certificate of Translation" provided in response to the RPE included the 
description "Membership in Association" among its seven listed items, the certification lacked any 
further specificity regarding any of the translated documents. Again, the submission of a single 
translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly 
accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ). Regardless, 
we cannot. conclude that the five requirements rise to the level of "outstanding 
achievements." While the requirements include an "invention, significant science and technical 
achievement or monograph," the Petitioner has not shown that such work equates to "outstanding 
achievements" in his field. Furthermore, the record does not include evidence demonstrating that the 
members' achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his membership in the and the meet this 
regulatory criterion. The Petitioner submits background information about the and the 
from their respective websites, but the online information does not mention membership 
requirements. Without evidence showing that the and the require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in thejjeld for which classtfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted a· 2014 article in but the English 
language translation accompanying the article was not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. §103.2(b)(3). Without a properly certified English language translation for the 
4 
(b)(6)
1 Matter of Y-G-
article, we cannot determine whether the material is about the Petitioner and relating to his work. In 
addition, the author of the article was not identified, and the record does not include objective 
evidence showing that is a professional or major trade publication or other 
form of major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner offered several letters of support as evidence for this regulatory criterion. On appeal, 
he provides biographical information for five of his references. The Petitioner indicates that his 
"contributions to the sculptural/design field are widely lauded by peers and experts in his field of 
expertise." For instance, a letter from and professors of the 
China, stated: 
[The Petitioner's] work was collected by the 
His other work ha[ s] been selected and awarded by 
and other great art 
exhibitions. 
With regard to the Petitioner's participation in various art exhibitions, the regulations contain a 
separate criterion for display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Evidence relating to or even meeting the display criterion is not presumptive 
evidence that the Petitioner also meets this criterion. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for artistic display ,and original contributions of 
major significance in the field, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To 
hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. and 
did not explain how the Petitioner's work has substantially impacted the visual arts field, has 
influenced the work of other artists, or otherwise equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. It is not enough to be a talented sculptor and to have others attest to that 
talent. An individual must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
a painter and sculptor in China, indicated that the Petitioner "is a sculptor artist 
with [a] solid design foundation, intelligence and creativity" and that "[h]is success influences many 
young entrepreneurs and other artists." listed various works sculpted by the Petitioner, but did 
not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner ~ s work has affected others in the field or 
otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field of modem art. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-G-
Another reference, associate professor of the 
China, stated: "[The Petitioner] is an artist with [a] gift. Since 1980s he often attended 
different kinds of sculpture exhibitions and competitions which improve his creation. These award 
certificates made him recognized in the sculpture field." The Petitioner's award certificates have 
already been considered 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct criterion. Regardless, 
statements do not show that the Petitioner's sculptures rise to the level of original artistic , 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
chairman of the board for 
and a senior engineer' at discussed the Petitioner's work as a designer while 
employed by their company. and listed several building decoration projects overseen 
by the Petitioner and noted that "[h]e studied, designed and made many construction frame and 
garden decoration models with different culture feature[ s] to achieve sustainable development ,.of our 
company and control the cost for company." With regard to the Petitioner's work for the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that his original contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than just to his employer and its projects. Although the Petitioner's 
work was valuable to the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his projects have 
influenced the architectural design industry in a substantial way or have otherwise risen to the level 
of original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, a senior craft artist and member of various Chinese arts organizations, 
described several of the Petitioner's artistic projects. mentioned that the Petitioner (note: 
errors in the original text have not been changed) "designed and made logo and marine organism 
relief of granite for designed and decorated for 
for academician 
building." further indicated that "[a]ll these works ... received good reputation from 
leaders of but did not offer any specific examples of how these projects 
have widely affected the architectural design field or have otherwise been commensurate with 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific 
affirmations above. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or 
their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v, U.S Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration 
benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the petitioner's eligibility. /d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Without 
additional, specific evidence showing that his work has been unusually influential, has substantially 
impacted the visual arts field or architectural design industry, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-G-
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). 
The Petitioner provided an article entitled 
in but as the article was 
not accompanied by a full English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§103.2(b)(3), we cannot determine whether the article supports the Petitioner's claims. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits a webpage that provides information about the ' building decoration 
industry association," but the article does not mention The 
Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence demonstrating that the aforementioned magazine is a 
professional or m~or trade publication or form of major media. Accordingly, he has not established 
that he meets this regulatory criterion. · 
I 
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). 
Although the Petitioner does not claim eligibility for this criterion on appeal, the record includes 
photographs and certificates indicating that the Petitioner's sculptures have been displayed at artistic 
exhibitions such as the ' for held at 
Therefore, we find that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In his appeal, the Petitioner states that as a design director for he "worked on many 
architectural projects designing both residential and commercial buildings. They are often large­
scale projects creating cohe.sive designs for entire communities and compounds." The Petitioner 
lists several of the company's residential and commercial projects, and describes his design work for 
the projects. The record included a "Projects table" prepared by that reflected the Petitioner's 
participation as a "design director" and "construction director" on more than 20 projects for 
In their letter of support, and indicated that had "healthy and fast 
development under [the Petitioner's] leading which brings abundant remuneration for our company 
and our coworkers," but they did not explain how the :Petitioner's supervisory duties for various 
design projects translated to a leading role for the company as a whole, or provide further 
information regarding the financial success attributable to his work. 
In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where a petitioner fits within the hierarchy and 
duties of an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of his 
contributions to the organization or establishment's operational viability. The Petitioner did not 
provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where his role fit within the 
overall hierarchy of While the Petitioner served as a "design director" and "construction 
director" on various projects, he 
did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the 
contention that his project duties were leading or critical for the company as a whole. The submitted 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-G-
documentation does not differentiate the Petitioner from other project directors and company 
executives so as to demonstrate his leading role,' and does not establish that his work contributed to the 
company in a way that was of substantial importance to its success or standing in the design 
industry. 
Additionally, with regard to the reputation of his employer, the Petitioner provided four ' 
reflecting that was selected to perform design projects for 
and 
Although the bid-winning notices show that that was the contractor chosen to 
perform construction and design work, they are not sufficient to show that the company has earned a 
distinguished reputation in the industry. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that 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 included the requisite 
material under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, our 
next step of analysis would be a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions in 
the context of whether he has achieved: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of eNdeavor," and (2) "that the 
[petitioner] has sustained national or international acclaim" and that his "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. As the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that he has not satisfied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner has achieved the level of expertise required for this 
classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated. by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, he has not established 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-G-, ID# 85950 (AAO Oct. 27, 2016) 
8