dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 112 52783 Office: CALIFOR~IA SERVICE CENTER Date: I k5' J 700" r 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
0 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decisidn of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 2 Robeft P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 1 12 52783 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts as a visual artist. 
The director addressed the petitioner's evidence in relation to five criteria, but found that the petitioner met only 
one criterion and was consequently ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Counsel 
repeats his initial claims on appeal and presents no substantive reason to question the director's decision. The 
evidence submitted and counsel's contentions are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria 
relevant to the petitioner's case. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in thej?eld of endeavor. 
WAC 03 1 12 52783 
Page 3 
The director correctly concluded that the petitioner's academic diplomas did not meet this criterion. The 
petitioner received a diploma in drawing and design instruction from the Erevan Arts College in 1978 and a 
diploma in scene painting from the Erevan State Arts and Theater Institute in 1984. These diplomas evidence 
the petitioner's satisfactory completion of academic courses of study in the visual arts, but they are not 
equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards granted to professional visual artists. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner's membership in the Artists Union of Russia and the International 
Federation of Artists as well as his participation in the U.S.-Russian Mayor-to-Mayor Program all constitute 
prizes or awards that meet this criterion. The record does not support this claim. Two documents verify the 
petitioner's membership in the Artists Union of Russia and the International Federation of Artists, but the record 
is devoid of any information about these organizations that would indicate that membership is so exclusive or 
prestigious that it warrants consideration as a prize or award for excellence in the visual arts. Instead, the 
petitioner's membership in these organizations is more relevant to the second criterion and will be discussed 
below. Similarly, the petitioner's involvement with the U.S.-Russian Mayor-to-Mayor Program is more relevant 
to the seventh criterion (concerning artistic exhibitions). The petitioner's "participation" in this program 
consisted of a one-time exhibition of his work along with 46 other Russian artists in the "Russian Charity Fine 
Arts Auction" at The Russian Cultural Centre in Washington, DC. The brochure from this auction does not 
indicate that any prizes or awards were granted during the exhibition or that mere participation was comparable 
to a prize or award. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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$elds. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel repeats his 
contention that the petitioner's membership in the Artists Union of Russia and the International Federation of 
Artists meets this criterion. Counsel's contention is unsupported by the record. The petitioner only presents 
evidence of his membership: a certificate verifying his membership in the Artists Union of Russia and a 
photocopy of his membership card for the International Federation of Artists.' The record contains no evidence 
of the membership selection criteria for either association that would establish that they require outstanding 
achievements of their members as determined by recognized national or international experts in the visual arts. 
On appeal, counsel maintains that the petitioner's membership in the Crossroad art group fulfills this criterion. 
Again, the record does not support this contention. No evidence indicates that this creative group is a formal 
association that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the visual arts. According to the Dow Art Gallery exhibition catalogue, the Crossroad 
art group consists of four Armenian artists whose work reflects the intersection of Eastern and Western cultural 
traditions. The petitioner is one of two founding members of the group and, as such, was self-selected for 
membership. Consequently, the petitioner's membership in this group cannot establish his eligibility under this 
1 
The two organizations may not even be independent of one another. The petitioner's International Federation 
of Artists membership card states that the petitioner is a member of "International Federation of Artists & 
national Artist's Union of Russia, department." This statement suggests that the latter organization is a 
subsection of the former. 
WAC 03 112 52783 
Page 4 
criterion. Rather, his role in the Crossroad art group is more relevant to, and is discussed below in relation to, 
the fifth and eighth criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the 8eld for which classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director correctly concluded that the newspaper articles submitted did not establish the petitioner's 
eligibility under this criterion. The record contains three newspaper articles that briefly review group 
exhibitions in which the petitioner participated. The petitioner's work is summarily discussed in only two of the 
articles. The article from the Horgauer Zeitung newspaper contains a short, two-sentence paragraph describing 
the petitioner's paintings. The article from the MontreazdRiviera newspaper may contain a longer discussion 
of the petitioner's work, but the photocopy of the relevant portion of the original article in French is cut off and 
the English translation is abbreviated into one short sentence: "Annen stages little daily stories [. . .] shows [sic] 
beauty created for himself and others" (bracketed ellipsis in original). Moreover, the newspapers do not appear 
to be professional or major trade publications and no circulation information is provided to establish that any of 
the three newspapers qualify as major media. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient@c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signijicance in thejield. 
The director found no evidence regarding this criterion and counsel does not contest this conclusion on appeal. 
However, the record contains evidence relevant to this category that merits brief discussion. As previously 
mentioned, the petitioner is a founding member of the Crossroad art group. This group consists of Armenian 
artists whose work reflects the heritage of their homeland as a "crossroad between east and west, north and 
south and . . . always the crossroad of different cult~res."~ Although the evidence suggests that the Crossroad art 
group had some impact on the field of visual arts in Russia, that evidence is insufficient to establish that the 
petitioner himself has made original artistic contributions of major significance that would reflect sustained 
national or international acclaim for his own work independently. The newspaper articles previously mentioned 
only briefly describe the petitioner's work. Contrary to counsel's assertion, the Nachrichten newspaper article's 
proclamation that the Crossroad members "show colossal artistic potential from another world" does not 
evidence established, original artistic contributions of major significance. The quotation heralds artistic 
"potential," not accomplishment. Most importantly, the article describes the collective potential of the 
Crossroad art group, it does not speak of the petitioner's major, original artistic col~tributions to the field of 
visual arts as an individual. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner met this criterion. The record contains 15 catalogues and 
brochures, and three newspaper articles for group exhibitions in which the petitioner has participated. These 
documents establish that the petitioner's work has been displayed in Russia, the United States and Switzerland. 
In addition, the petitioner's work is in the permanent collections of the Moscow Museum of Contemporary Arts 
and the Yerevan Modern Art Museum. 
2 Petitioner's Exhibit E(3), Exhibition review published in the Nachrichten newspaper. 
WAC 03 112 52783 
Page 5 
Evidence that the alien has perjormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The director found no evidence in the record relevant to this category and counsel does not challenge this 
conclusion on appeal. However, the record contains evidence relevant to this criterion that merits brief 
discussion. The petitioner's role as a founding member of the Crossroad art group is relevant, but ultimately 
insufficient to establish his eligibility under this criterion. As discussed above in relation to the fifth category, 
the Crossroad art group has apparently attracted some attention for blending Eastern and Western cultural 
influences and artistic techniques. As a founding member, the petitioner has undoubtedly played a leading role 
for the group. However, the record is insufficient to establish that the Crossroad art group is a formal 
organization that has a distinguished reputation or that the petitioner's role in the group demonstrates his own 
sustained national or international acclaim as an individual artist. Hence the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in thejield. 
The director correctly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility under 
this category. Counsel contests this determination on appeal by asserting that the petitioner's paintings were 
"priced at up to $3,000 each, a significant sum in Armenia as well as European countries." Counsel also claims 
that the article in the Nachrichten newspaper states that "substantial sums were paid for the petitioner's art 
work." Once again, counsel's claims are uncorroborated. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In the catalogues for three 
charity art auctions for Operation Smile, the petitioner's work is priced between $1,200 and $3,000. The work 
of other painters in these exhibitions was priced as high as $8,000. The record contains no documentation of the 
actual sale or sale price of the petitioner's work or how those prices compared to the prices of other visual 
artists' work in Russia at that time. Contrary to counsel's suggestion, the Nachrichten newspaper article does 
not state the selling price of the petitioner's work and the petitioner presents no other evidence that his work 
commands significantly high prices in comparison to other visual artists in Armenia, Russia or European 
countries. 
We note that the contemporary art market in Russia is not comparable to that in the United States or certain 
other countrie~.~ However, given the number of exhibitions in which the petitioner has participated both within 
Russia and abroad, one would expect that he would be able to produce primary evidence of the actual sale of his 
work if he wished to establish eligibility under this criterion. Yet the record is devoid of any sales receipts or 
gallery sale contracts. Even the "Acceptance for Sale Report #18" from the Moscow Museum of Contemporary 
Arts does not state the price paid for the petitioner's two paintings. In sum, the record is insufficient to establish 
that the petitioner's work commands relatively high prices that demonstrate his sustained national or 
international acclaim as a visual artist. 
3 The exhibition catalogue for Art Manege '99 Moscow explains the "[albsence of the functioning art-market 
and almost total absence of communications between the creator and potential 'consumer' of contemporary 
art" in Russia. Apparently, the Russian art "[glallery as a business-structure [has lost] its sense and 
change[d] its status, turning to [an] organization realizing non-commercial exhibition projects or social and 
political demands ." Petitioner's Exhibit D(9). 
WAC 03 112 52783 
Page 6 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act only if the alien can 
establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim 
demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The petitioner bears this substantial 
burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner in this case has not sustained that 
burden. The evidence indicates that the petitioner is an accomplished Russian painter whose work has been 
exhibited in his native country and abroad, but the record does not establish that he is an artist of extraordinary 
ability. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.