dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19518381 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a visual artist and designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act(theAct) 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 although the 
Petitioner satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not show his 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among that small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 
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 sufficient qualifying 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). 
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 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth 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 dete1mine whether the factto be proven is probably 
true." MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he 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). The Director determined that the Petitioner met three of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), artistic display at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, the 
Director concluded thatthe Petitioner did not show that he garnered sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, demonstrating that 
he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. On appeal, we will review 
the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate 
whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or 
international acclaim, 2 that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.l,EvaluationofEvidence Submitted with CertainForml-140Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADJJ-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordina1y ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act). 
2 Sec USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
2 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze an individual's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in 
the field of endeavor. 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. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his 
eligibility. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner provided a statement indicating: 
Currently, I am the co-owner orl l an architecture company based in 
I jvenezuela, and one of the most important one in the country, with over 240 
architectonic projects in our portfolio - some already built, some in construction, some 
in the feasibility studies stage and some just ideas in drawing paper pending on client 
decisions. 
We have built winning award houses, buildings, malls, several considered real 
landmarks in Venezuela. Also, we have developed architectonic projects in South and 
Central America, the United States and Europe. 
But I am a visual artist, as well. During my career, I have demonstrated that my art and 
my skills as an architect merged. 
As an artist, I have showcased my artwork in individual and collective exhibitions, 
during the last 45 years, in different countries and the 
most renowned galleries in cities 
such as Barcelona, Madrid, Caracas, Bogota, Miami, San Francisco, among others. 
Furthermore, I have won awards and distinctions as a visual artist. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner has received published material about him, 
displayed in work, and performed in a leading or critical role, the record does not demonstrate that he 
enjoys a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it relates to published material, the Petitioner offered about a dozen articles for the period of 2005 
- 2018. About half of the articles show published material about him relating to his work, while the 
other articles either mentions his name one time or reflect coverage of his various art exhibits where 
he is credited as the artist. While he claimed to have showcased his artwork for the past 45 years, the 
Petitioner did not present any media coverage of him prior to 2005. Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that such press coverage is consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the 
Petitioner did not show how his overall media coverage is indicative of a level of success with being 
among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
providing Black's Law Dictionary 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a longperiodoftime, 
and to persist in makinganeffort over a longperiodoftime). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USC IS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to d etermine e if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high lev e 1 of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
3 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting on him and his 
activities reflect a career of acclaimed work in the field. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203 (b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides 
that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is 
reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than 
that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 4 Here, the 
Petitioner's minimal media exposure does notmeetthis very high standard. The articles, for instance, 
do not reference the Petitioner as an acclaimed, nationally or internationally recognized artist, 
acknowledging him among the upper echelon in the field. 
Regarding the artistic display of his work, the Petitioner provided evidence of his 20 collective 
exhibitions and his 12 individual exhibitions. The majority of his exhibitions occurred at art galleries 
inl IV enezuela with also a few inl I Florida andl I California from 
2001 - 2019. Although the Petitioner established that he exhibited his work at artistic exhibitions and 
showcases, simply displaying one's work, however, does not automatically place one at the very top 
of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual 
of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of his collective or individual exhibitions, such as that 
his work brought wide praise from critics, drew notable crowds, raised attendance, or was responsible 
for the success of standings of the events. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. Again, the nominal press 
coverage over the last 20 years, without any evidence of his artwork displayed prior to 2001, does not 
show his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the Petitioner's evidence does not distinguish his work from others in his 
field or show that it reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field. See H.R. Rep. No.101-723 at 59. 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that his work garnered a level of attention or was regularly 
seen at highly reputable venues consistent with being among that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As it pe1iains to his leading or critical role, as mentioned earlier, the Petitioner co-ownsD 
I I The Petitioner submitted a few articles authored by I describing some 
of its architectural projects. In addition, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that 
I received awards for various architectural projects. The record also contains evidence of 
I l's construction projects and furniture brand, I' Although the Petitioner 
claimed to have been working in the field for the past 45 years, he did not document any roles for any 
other organizations or establishments, nor did he demonstrate that he received a level of attention or 
recognition from the field based on his work withl I reflecting a career of acclaimed 
work in the field or a very high standard to present more extensive documentation than that required. 
See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at59 and56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. Moreover, the Petitioner's evidence does 
not indicate that he received recognition on a national or international scale, consistent with being 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish how his role with resulted in widespread acclaim from 
his field, that he drew significant attention from the greater field, or that the overall field considers 
4 Sec also USCISPolicyMemorandumPM 602-0005.1,supra, at 2. 
4 
him to be at the very top, garnering with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)oftheActand8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Beyond the three criteria determined by the Director that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider 
additional documentation in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence 
demonstrates eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Here, for the reasons discussed 
below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner presented three awards received by. Although he 
co-owns the business, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he has been individually acknowledged 
by garnering nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, 
showing a career of acclaimed work in the field. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. Here, the Petitioner 
did not establish that his personal achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Furthermore, he has not shown, for 
instance, that he competed against other accomplished visual artists or designers, reflecting that he is 
one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, regarding his contributions in the field, the Petitioner referenced the same media articles, 
discussed above, as well as five other materials reviewing and critiquing both his individual collections 
andl architectural projects. The record also contains evidence of the Petitioner's 
humanitarian work with organizations. Although the evidence reflects the originality of his work and 
that it has received some attention, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he has garnered recognition 
on a national or international scale, consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that 
the level of media coverage represents impactful or influential contributions in the overall field 
representing a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the required sustained national or 
international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner did not show that his contributions received substantial attention from the field, indicating 
that he is among the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 
30704. While his charitable work with various organizations is admirable, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his humanitarian work contributes to a career of acclaimed work in the field. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. See Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (concluding that even major league level athletes do 
not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamalll), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 202l)(determiningthat 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
(citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c ]ourts have found that even 
5 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (findingthat"arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Koreanhist01y" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no 
one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of 
his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner previously received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard­
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 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 USv. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999);Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41. 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 petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6