dismissed EB-1A Case: Uzbek Traditional Embroidery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.3,2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
Tqe Petitioner seeks classification· as· an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of Uzbek 
traditional embroidery. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A), 8 
U.S.C. §, 153(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 initially approved the p~tition. Subsequently, the 
Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval, advising the Petitioner that he did 
not satisfy the initial evidence requirement of presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is 
a major, internationally recognized award, or documentation that met at least three of the ten criteria 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). After reviewing the Petitioner's NOIR response, the 
Director revoked the approval of the petition, finding that it had been approved in error. 
On appeal, the Pe_titioner maintains that the Director erred, claiming that he meets five of the ten 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and is eligible for the classification. He supports 
his appeal with additional documentation. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants if: 
(i) . the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
1 In addition to the instant petition, the Petitioner has filed a second petition seeking classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the field of Uzbek traditional embroidery. That second petition remains pending at the time of 
this decision. 
Maller of R-G-
acclaim and whose achievements have· been recognized m the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirement. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time _achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirement, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, shows 
sustained national or international accla}m and demonstrates that the individual is among the small 
percen~age at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 20 I 0) ( 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, 13-1-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the 
"truth is to be detern1ined 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 true." Matter <~(Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him [ or her] .... " 
In addition, the Board oflmmigration Appeals.has stated: 
[n Matter of £slime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would -.yarrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
2 
.
Matter of R-G-
time the decision is rendered, 'including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Maller of £slime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
l 987)) . 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 590. The 
approval of a ·visa petition v~sts no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa 
petition is but a preliminary step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by 
mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon a review of all the documents in the record, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the 
approval of the petition, because the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies his initial 
evidence requirement. Specifically, he has not presented evidence ofhis one-time achievement that 
is a major, internationally recognized award, or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).2 
Documentation qlthe alien ·s membership in associations in the field.for ·which classffication is· 
sought. which require oulstanding achievements ql their members. as judged by recognized 
national or inlernalional experts in /heir disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion because he is a member of the 
He has submitted a certificate issued by the Chairman of the of the 
organization, indicating that he is "on state registration of masters and handicraftsmen." The record 
includes a letter from · the head of the association, stating that it "is open only to 
highly skilled masters who are among the few on top of their fields and requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the 
respective field of folk art ." The letter provides that the Petitioner's membership was recommended 
by _______ and --·----~ 
The evidence in the record is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. While . 
the letter from contains language that mirrors the regulation, neither 
nor the Petitioner has pointed to sufficient evidence in the record that supports the claim that the 
organization requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Specifically, the record lacks the entity's constitution, bylaws, or other official 
documents, detailing its membership selection process and criteria. Without additional evidence that 
accurately and credibly explains the association's membership requirements or selection process, 
2 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not establish, that he has received a one-time achievement. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We will discuss the evidence concerning the five criteria that he claims to meet. 
3 
.
· Maller <f R-G-
conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. See 
17j6, Inc. v. Uniled Stales All 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (noting that we need not 
accept prim~rily conclusory _statements). 
Moreover, although the record includes letters from and the individuals 
who purportedly recommended the Petitioner for membership in the the 
documentation is insufficient to show that they qualify as national or international experts in their 
fields. Other than the opening sentence, which provides the author's field of expertise, these two 
letters are identical, including the same wording when discussing the Petitioner's qualifications and 
achievements in the field of Uzbek traditional embroidery . Based on the identical contents of these 
letters, the Petitioner has not shown that they reflect the authors' independent observations or that 
they confirm the authors' status as nationally or internationally recognized experts. While 
and resumes are in the record, the uncorroborated documents are insufficient to 
confirm the individuals are qualifying experts in their fields. Similarly, although 
claims that they are nationally recognized experts , he has not explained the basis of his knowledge or 
offered sufficient evidence in support of his statement. 
Furthermore, the record includes inconsistent information relating to who had recommended the 
Petitioner for membership in the While provides that 
and recommended the Petitioner, a branch director of 
in Uzbekistan, indicates that it was who had recommended· him. The 
record contains inconsistent documentation relating to this criterion, which must be resolved with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. The 
Petitioner has not done so here. Based on the above reasons, he has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence oft he alien ·s participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the work <?f 
of hers in the same or an allied.field <?lspecUication for which clas.,·Uication is soitght. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports this· finding. 
Specifically, according to a certificate from the of the 
of the Republic of Uzbekistan , the Petitioner was "a 
member of the jury and judged the work of other craftsmen to determine the winners" at the 2015 
exhibition held in Uzbekistan. The 
Petitioner has also submitted documentation confirming his participation as a judge in other events, 
including the 2014 ' ___ showcase. Accordingly, he has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of !he alien's original scient[flc. scholarly . artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of mqjor sign[flcance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3}(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he "has made a contribution of major significance to [the] field 
by virtue of his mastery of Uzbek traditional embroidery techniques and by adapt(ing] ancient 
4 
.
Maller of R-G-
embroidery techniques to contemporary materials and tastes." The record includes reference letters 
in support of this criterion. For example, letter states that the Petitioner's 
embroidery "is only slightly twisted, creating the impression of non-woven thread" and he "use[s] 
his innovative technique ... to achieve an unusual and attractive visual effect of creating an 
interplay of light and shine in his decorations that is both inspiring and uplifting." 
letter provides that the Petitioner has "made a contribution of major significance by virtue of his 
mastery of traditional embroidering techniques and their adaptation to contemporary materials and 
tastes." He further claims that the Petitioner's contributions "to the art of embroidery, decorative art, 
and cultural traditions of Uzbekistan are of major importance as the[y] have and will continue to 
influence the work of other artists" and that "[m]any of his unique creations have been displayed and 
sold at major exhibitions in Uzbekistan and Central Asia." 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field of Uzbek traditional embroidery. Major 
significance in the field may be shown through evidence that his original methods or processes have 
been widely implemented throughout the field; have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or 
have otherwise risen to a level of m_ajor significance in the field. 
The record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. While the 
reference letters discuss his work, noting in general that it is well-regarded and appreciated, they do 
not explain how specifically his work has impacted the field in a major or significant way, consistent 
with a finding of "contributions of major significance." For example, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's techniques have been widely used by ot_hers in the field. The 
documents in the record, including those not specifically mentioned, primarily contain attestations of 
the Petitione"r's status in the field without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise 
to a level consistent with major significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not 
explain how an individual's _ contributions have already influenced the field significantly are 
insufficient to satisfy this criterion. Kazarian v. USC!S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), afl'd 
in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Moreover, we need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc., 
745 F. Supp. at 17. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the ·alien ·.\' authorship . C?f scholarly articles in the field. in professional or mcy·or 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). \ . 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he has "published scholarly articles dedicated to the Uzbek 
traditional embroidery, its history and importance in Uzbek culture, in major media" and that he has 
"authored a treatise titled which 1s devoted to the history and technology· of 
embroidery in Uzbekistan." The record includes a book that lists the Petitioner as an 
editor. According to , the head of the publisher of the material, the 
Petitioner is also the author of the book and that the "[e]dition circulation is 1,000 copies." 
further states that the book "is devoted to the art of embroidery, its history and varieties" 
and that it "was distributed to regional libraries." The record includes evidence that the Petitioner 
has authored articles that are published in The Advice <~f Bukhara ·s Imam and Evening Bukhara. 
5 
.
I 
Malter of R-G-
While the Petitioner might have authored written work, he h~s not shown that his pieces qualify as 
"scholarly articles," as required under the criterion. In general, scholarly articles report on original 
research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse, and often have footnotes, endnotes, or a 
bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts 
express in the article. 3 Usually, scholarly articles are written for learned persons in that field. In this 
case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that (which contains six pages) and the articles 
(which are each one page in length), without footnotes, endnotes, or bibliographies, qualify as 
scholarly. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that his work has been published in qualifying 
publications. For example, he has offered a letter from the chief editor of Evening Bukhara, stating 
that the newspaper is "intended for wide general readership" and that "[t]he circulation of 
publication is 580 copies"; as well as a letter from the chief editor of The Advice cf Bukhara 's Imam, 
indicating that the publication "has the circulation of 4,000 copies." The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that based <!n the circulation data, these two publications qualify as major me~ia. In 
addition, he has not presented adequate documentation confirming they constitute either professional 
or major trade publications . Based on the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 4 
Evidence of-the display <?f the alien ·s work in the .field al artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports this determination. 
Specifically , the Petitioner has offered a diploma from the Chairman of the 
of , Russia, stating that in 2009 , _the Petitioner exhibited his "high quality 
products made of silk and of his handmade original"design jewelry" at the exhibition 
; as well-as documents from the . confirming that in 
2016, he displayed his silk embroidery at the festival. Accordingly, tl)e Petitioner has satisfied this 
criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at ~east three of the ten criteria . As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits dete1mination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, upon a 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submilled with Certain Form /-/40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADI /-/4 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https:/ /www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fi les/U SC IS/La ws/Memoranda/i-I 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pd f. 
~ The record includes documentation of the Petitioner"s authorship of materials after the filing of this petiiion in August 
2016. Thls evldence, however, does not demonstrate his' eligibility because he must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the classification have been satisfied from the time of the tiling and continuing through adjudication. 
See 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(I). · 
6 
Matter of R-G-
review of the record in its entirety, we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS 
h~s long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matier <?( Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc._ Comm'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his accomplishments 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)(l)(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)(I )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R_. § 2045(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner ~as not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. -
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-G-, ID# 1856892 (AAO Jan. 3, 2019) 
..I 
I' 
"1