dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

MATTER OF N-A-R-V-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 19, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a visual artist and photographer, 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers additional documentation, as well as previously submitted evidence, 
and a brief, contending that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova 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 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 implementing regulation 
.
Matter of N-A-R-V-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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); R(jal 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 determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that he was not currently employed.' Subsequently, he 
presented evidence showing employment on photographic projects in the area. 
Because he has not indicated or established that he has 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills four criteria. We have reviewed all of the 
evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 contends that his receipt of the 
Photographer of the Year," and 
1 See the Petitioner's Form G-325A, Biographic Information. 
2 
Photographer of the Year" awards 
.
Matter of N-A-R-V-
meet this criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
He presents three letters from representatives of each of the awarding entities. Specifically, the 
Petitioner submits a letter from , president of the 
who stated that the award "is the most prominent and prestigious award in Venezuela" and is "the 
most highly-prized Venezuelan award regionally, nationally and internationally." Moreover, he 
offers a letter from president of who claims 
that the awards "have been presented to the most outstanding, beloved and acclaimed figures of 
photography, culture and art of the past 20 years in Venezuela." Further, he provides a letter from 
president of , who indicates that 
"we have given awards to the most outstanding musical and entertainment artists at the national and 
international levels." 
Although the letters attest that their awards are national or international, the authors did not provide 
specific, detailed, and probative information explaining how their awards are considered by the 
visual artist or photography field as nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. Here, 
the authors praise their awards without showing the overall field's recognition of them. The 
Petitioner did not establish, for example, the national or international significance of the awards or 
prizes by the field.2 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classtfication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner provides evidence showing that he was a juror for a photographic and audiovisual 
contest in 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signfficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner argues that he "restor[ ed] the archive of the photographic oeuvre of , a 
Venezuelan photographer who lived from 1857 until 1920." Moreover, he maintains that he 
"work[ ed] on the traveling exhibition , in which [he] acted as the creator 
of a photographic record of the exhibition." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that 
they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluati on of Evidence Submill ed with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Aqjudi cator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update A DI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
.
Matter of N-A-R-V-
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
Regarding his archival work of 
president of 
the Petitioner presents a letter from 
who described the 
Petitioner's efforts in "rescuing," "restoring," and "transferring" ; artistic works to 
the of Venezuela. . also indicated that the exhibition "had an 
impact of such magnitude that a catalog was prepared with these unpublished photographs of this 
unique Venezuelan artist who is part of the country's photographic history." However, 
did not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work with photographs significantly 
impacted or influenced the field. The Petitioner did not show, for example, that the overall field 
considers the Petitioner's work to be of major significance.3 Moreover, did not 
elaborate on the importance of the catalog and how the field considers it to be majorly significant. 
Similarly, as it relates to his work on the Petitioner offers another letter 
from who stated that the Petitioner served as an independent principal 
photographer and as the media coordinator for the exhibition. Moreover, indicated 
that the Petitioner "did distinguished work for us" and "stood out for his service as a photographic 
guide for the distinguished artist while he was creating photographic images during his 
stay in Again, did not provide specific, detailed information explaining 
how the field considers the Petitioner's work to be of major significance. For instance, 
did not establish that the overall field, beyond views the Petitioner's work on the 
exhibition as an original contribution of major significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner offers a letter from director of the department of 
photography at who made general assertions regarding the Petitioner's work 
without specifically identifying original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, claimed that the Petitioner's "journalistic and artistic language contributed 
greatly to providing information, and to giving a cultural context, for the imagery used." While he 
praised the Petitioner's work, did not identify original contributions or show how the 
field has been greatly impacted or influenced by the work. 
The letters considered above primarily contains attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value.4 Letters that lack specifics 
and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 
Matter of N-A-R-V-
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 5 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 submits evidence reflecting that he displayed his work at three artistic exhibitions in 
Venezuela. Accordingly, the Petitioner established that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter <~f Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his artistic 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-A-R-V-, ID# 1734779 (AAO Nov. 19, 2018) 
5 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are 
insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field). 
5