dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

identifying data deleted ta 
prevent clearly ~nwnrrcmted 
invaPon of personal priva~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
LIN 07 150 53857 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/- '-Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The petitioner filed an appeal, which the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
rejected as untimely and returned to the director for treatment as a motion to reconsider. The director 
considered the late appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and affirmed denial of the petition. The 
matter is now before the AAO 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. 5 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 necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 30, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a visual artist. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as an artist and a graphic 
designer for Xochitl Art & Design Corporation, a company operated by the petitioner and her 
spouse. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "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. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational directory showing that she is a member of the 
International Association of Hispanists (AIH). The petitioner also submitted information from the 
AIH's internet site stating that applicants seeking membership in the association must fulfill the 
following requirements: 
The Association may incorporate as members people of the following professional and 
scientific quality: university professors, investigators, critics and scholars, previous request 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
to the Secretary General. The Secretary General requires the interested to complete an 
application request. Applications of new valid partners for the following triennium will be 
only accepted between the 1 of February of the year of the celebration and congress and its 
closing. The Spanish scholars who are not members only will be able to register to the 
congress in quality of listeners. 
We cannot conclude that working as a university professor, investigator, critic or scholar equates to 
outstanding achievements. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was judged by 
recognized national or international experts in her field or an allied one in determining her admission 
to membership. 
The petitioner submitted two internet printouts showing that she authored a book article which was 
posted on the bibliography database of the Modern Language Association (MLA). The petitioner 
has not established that authoring a book article that was included in the MLA's bibliography 
database equates to holding membership in the association. Aside from inclusion of her book article 
in the MLA's database, the record does not include a personal membership credential or some other 
form of official documentation from the MLA confirming the petitioner's membership. The 
petitioner also submitted general information about the MLA from its internet site, but there is no 
evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the official admission requirements for the MLA. 
Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that the MLA constitutes an association "in the field for 
which classification is sought," the visual arts. 
In an April 27,2007 letter accompanying the petition, counsel states: "[The petitioner] has also been 
an artist member of both the Guggenheim Museum and the Museum of Modern Art in New York 
City." The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the petitioner is an artist 
member of the Guggenheim Museum. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted documentation showing 
that she purchased an "Artist Annual Pass" from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). A 
notification letter to the petitioner from the MOMA states: 
Thank you for purchasing an Artist Annual Pass with The Museum of Modern Art. 
This Artist Annual Pass allows unlimited free admission to the Museum galleries and films 
for the pass holder only. It is valid until the expiration date listed below and may be renewed 
for the annual fee of $25 at the lobby information desk or the Film and Media desk. 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "The Museum of Modem Art Artist Pass Policy" 
stating: "The Artist Pass is sold to artists who can prove they have had a piece exhibited within the 
past two years." As exhibition of one's work is inherent to the visual arts, we cannot conclude that 
displaying one's work at a show, a gallery, a museum, or in print equates to outstanding 
achievements. Further, the petitioner has not established that "purchasing an Artist Annual Pass 
with The Museum of Modern Art" equates to holding "membership" in an association. Moreover, 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was judged by recognized national or international 
experts in her field or an allied one in determining her admission to membership. Nevertheless, the 
petitioner's Artist Annual Pass notification letter reflects a "Transaction Date" of 06/22/07 and an 
"Expiration Date" of 06/30/2008. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner held an Artist 
Annual Pass for the MOMA as of the petition's April 30, 2007 filing date. A petitioner, however, 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's 
artist access pass purchased in June 2007 in this proceeding. 
In this case, we concur with the director's findings that there is no evidence showing that the AIH, 
the MLA, the MOMA Artist Annual Pass program, and the Guggenheim Museum's artist member 
program require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. On appeal, counsel does not challenge 
the director's findings for this criterion or argue that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level ftom a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted a June 28, 1977 article about her in El Pais entitled "The Work of [the 
petitioner] at the Valle University." The author of this article was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a June 15, 1978 article in Uno Mas Uno entitled "Round table? Atmosphere? 
Homage? The No Group, experimental workshop of plastic artists, will kidnap Gunther Gerzo." This 
article is not about the petitioner and only mentions her name in passing. The plain language of this 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
regulatory criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." Further, the 
author of the article was not identified. 
The petitioner submitted an October 25, 1978 article in Cromos magazine entitled "IV Atenas Exhibit 
of the Museum of Modern Art that discusses the work of the petitioner, and - - 
The petitioner submitted excerpts fiom the publication entitled The Athens Exhibitions in the Collection 
of the Museum of Modern Art in Bogota. This publication only mentions the petitioner's name in 
passing on page 9 and includes an image of her work "Lex" on page 42. The petitioner has not 
established that this book, or any significant portion of it, is about her. 
The petitioner submitted a November 27, 1978 article in Uno Mas Uno entitled "Jazz, slides, black 
lights and bewilderment of the public at the happening Ritual Interval." This article briefly mentions 
the petitioner and quotes her, but it is primarily about the Ritual Interval art show.3 
The petitioner submitted exhibition catalogues and programs containing material written about her art 
work b The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "lplublished material about 
the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the title, date, and 
author of the material." The event material written b- for the petitioner's art exhibitions does 
not meet the preceding requirements. 
The petitioner submitted page 38 fiom a 1980 issue of Revista magazine showing an electrocardiograph 
created by the petitioner. There is no mention of the petitioner in the accompanying article. The image 
of the petitioner's work on page 38 does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an August 12, 1987 article in El Porvenir entitled "There is no reason to be 
afraid of innovation." This article quotes the petitioner on the subject of video art, but it is not about 
her. 
On August 10, 2007, the director requested documentary evidence of the circulation of the preceding 
publications, but the petitioner did not submit the requested documentation. With regard to the 
preceding publications, there is no evidence showing that they qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or some other form of major media. Moreover, we cannot ignore the absence of published 
material about the petitioner in the two decades preceding the petition's filing date. The preceding 
articles from the 1970s and 1980s are not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's acclaim as a 
visual artist has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), 
and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
In response to the director's requests for evidence dated May 7, 2007 and August 10, 2007. counsel 
3 See generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8,2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
about a show are not about the actor). 
This material was authored by the 
petitioner rather than written about her and therefore does not meet the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. For example, the petitioner was a contributor to Blink Lifestyle Magazine in 2005 and 2007. 
The petitioner's response included promotional material fiom Blink Lifestyle Magazine's media kit 
stating that the magazine "prints 20,000 magazines (1 00 pages) per month" and has 5,000 subscriptions, 
but the limited distribution of the publication and the self-serving nature of its promotional material do 
not establish that magazine is a form of major media in Mexico, the United States, or Canada. 
Nevertheless, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the petitioner's "authorship of 
On appeal, counsel argues that catalogues fiom the petitioner's various art exhibitions constitute 
"'comparable evidence' of professional publications." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows 
for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." In this instance, the petitioner has not established that the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not applicable to visual artists. In fact, the articles 
submitted by the petitioner from the 1970s and 1980s directly refute such a claim. The regulatory 
language at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, 
as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is 
simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. Nevertheless, the 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding "display of the alien's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The catalogues from the petitioner's art exhibitions will be 
addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjkance in thejield. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support and documentation pertaining to her art 
exhibitions. 
, states that the petitioner has contributed her 
artistic and conceptual expertise to his magazine, including her article "Midnight Summer 
Homeless." He further states: 
[The petitioner] has been a pioneer in this field since the early 1970s, when video was first 
coming into existence as an artistic medium. In addition, [the petitioner] has always used 
video art as a medium for exploring esoteric ideas of linguistics and imagery. As a Latin 
American woman engaged with a radical artistic medium, [the petitioner] distinguished 
herself as a fearless and skillful artist who utilizes cutting edge materials and ideas. 
I first encountered [the petitioner's] artistry through her acclaimed exhibitions at the Museum 
of Modem Art in Colombia. Her work demonstrated a distinctive experimental approach to 
the contemporary variations and combinations of this art form today. [The petitioner's] 
exhibits, "In-Pulso," "Musica-Imiada," and "Los Dientes Del Dragon," are all demonstrative 
of her extraordinary talent as a Video and Conceptual Artist. 
We note that arranging for the display of one's work at museums and exhibitions is inherent to the 
visual arts. It does not follow that that every visual artist who successfully exhibits his or her work 
has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
I have approached [the petitioner] on a number of occasions to exhibit her work at my shows. 
She is an important figure in the sophisticated field of video art. Based on her expertise and 
fame as one of the most famous video artists in Latin America, I invited her to participate in 
my exhibition at CUNY [City University of New York], titled "Behind the Camera: Women 
in the Director's Chair" as a lecturer. This exhibition was a special program to discuss the 
role of women as creative artists and directors. 
Having been in the field since its inception, [the petitioner] is today a renowned Latin 
American video artist. Because of her extraordinary and unique talent, I have also asked her 
to collaborate with Videoteca Del Sur as a video art consultant. 
[The petitioner's] work is maintained in the Videoteca Del Sur archives as exemplar of Latin 
American talent and achievement. One of [the petitioner's] most prominent works, "Video- 
book," was installed at Videoteca Del Sur in 1996, and is currently a part of our permanent 
collection. In addition, Videoteca Del Sur has recently decided to include her more recent 
work, "7 % New York to Newport" to its permanent archives. 
While the record includes documentation showing that the petitioner's "Video-book" was exhibited 
by Videoteca Del Sur and that "7 '/2 New York to Newport" was screened along with more than two 
dozen other entries at "The On the Road Video Festival" at the 119 Gallery in Lowell, 
Massachusetts, there is no evidence showing that this work equates to artistic contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
[The petitioner] has long been an integral member of the community of video artists, both 
here in the United States and abroad. Before she moved to the United States, [the petitioner] 
was already an established artist and leader of the video art movement in Mexico. [The 
petitioner] created installations and experimental performances incorporating video arts 
throughout Mexico City. At the time, there were few Latin American women artists in the 
emerging field of video art. [The petitioner] was considered by many to be a pioneer and an 
inspiration. In particular, her piece "In Pulso," which was exhibited at museums in Mexico as 
well as at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, NY, was an extraordinary example of 
how artists could use new technologies to create humanistic artworks. 
Most recently, I had the opportunity to include her work in an exhibition I curated titled the 
"On the Road Video Festival," that was held at the 1 19 Gallery in Lowell, Massachusetts last 
October. From approximately 40 submissions, I selected her video art piece titled, "7 % New 
York to Newport," for the exhibition. 
Recently, [the petitioner's] piece "7 %" was chosen as one of the best artworks of the 
festival. As a result, the video was shown in April in a "best of' screening at "Bus Boys and 
Poets" in Washington, D.C. 
According to promotional material submitted by the petitioner from the "On the Road Video 
Festival" honorin23 videos were selected to be presented at Bus Boys and Poets as a 
part of the April 14, 2007 screening. While "7 % New York to Newport" has been displayed at the 
aforementioned venues, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's video has had a significant 
national or international impact on the visual arts community. As discussed previously, the 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding "display of the alien's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The petitioner's video exhibitions will be addressed there. 
University, states: 
In 2001, I was the Secretary of the Local Organizing Committee of the XIV International 
Conference of the AIH, which was held at The CUNY Graduate Center in New York, NY. 
[The petitioner] was one of the very few artist presenters at the AIH conference in 200 1, and 
one of two or three panelists who gave a presentation that incorporated visual content in 
addition to an oral presentation. To become a presenter at AIH, one must approach the 
organizing committee of the Congress, and provide a summary of the work to be presented at 
the conference. 
[The petitioner's] work provides a rare insight into the visual representation of linguistic and 
cultural narratives common to the scholarly work of many AIH members. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that her conference paper was presented at the AIH 
event in 2001 and that it appeared on page 365 of Actas Del XIV Congresso De La Asociacion 
Internacional De Hispanistas, but there is no evidence showing that her presented work equates to an 
original artistic contribution of major significance in the field. 
A September 4, 2007 letter from a professor at the Universidad 
Nacional in Bogota, Colombia, states: 
I was first introduced to [the petitioner's] work in 1978, when I was a student in Bogota. Her 
brilliant In Pulso project, which I saw at the Museo de Arte Moderno in Bogota was the first 
exhibition of Colombian video art. I was inspired by her work. . . . Years later, when I 
traveled to New York in 2000, I requested a meeting with [the petitioner]. At the time, I was 
beginning to develop my research on the history of the art form in Colombia and was excited 
to be meeting with one of the pioneers of Colombian video art. 
I am now writing a paper that chronicles the development of video art in Colombia, from its 
inception to more recent works. The first draft of my research can be viewed, in Spanish, 
online at www.bitio.net/vac. In my paper, I note that [the petitioner] . . . was, along with 
known video artist. I also note that her work was 
developed primarily outside of Colombia, in Mexico. Nevertheless, it made a huge impact in 
the ~olombian art world. Over the years following her first exhibition [the petitioner's] work 
was shown at the First Festival of Art of the Vanguard in Barranquilla, as well as the 
Museum of Modern Art in Cali and in several retrospectives of Colombian video art. 
The prominent Mexican art critic also thought that [the petitioner's] work was 
significant . . . . He contributed numerous essays to the conceptual innovations that were at 
the root of [the petitioner's] video art work. 
What makes [the petitioner's] early work so important and interesting is that it anticipates the 
major developments in art and technology that followed. Her use of video technology to 
record performance, including her own interactions with other technology, were 
revolutionary. Previously, artists used stationary means to depict their art, such as 
photography and painting, and removed themselves from the art's content, such that they 
were an invisible presence. With new video recording technology, artists were able to capture 
themselves interacting with their surroundings as in conceptual performance art, or could 
depict a transformation using video technology to create a wholly new piece of art that stood 
separately from the original exhibition. [The petitioner's] work captured these ideas for the 
first time in modern Colombian art. 
[The petitioner] explored ideas of communication by elemental means through her use of the 
electrocardiography technology to create drawings from her heartbeat. She exhibited both the 
resulting drawings and a video of the drawings being created by her on the machine. This 
Page 11 
work was profoundly exciting and beautiful. It was such an inspiration to me that I have 
studied video art ever since. Hers is an artistic contribution of major significance. 
include an address, telephone number, or any other information through which he may be contacted. 
states that although the petitioner's "work was developed primarily outside of 
Colombia, in Mexico, . . . it made a huge impact in the Colombian art world." However, we do not 
find it particularly unusual that the a native of Colombia, would exhibit her art work in 
her native country. Moreover, with regard to the commentaries written by, who directly 
sponsored the petitioner's art exhibitions and wrote promotional material for them, we cannot 
conclude that his commentaries demonstrate the greaterfield's independent reaction to her art work. 
- further states that the petitioner "was one of the first artists to 
exhibit video art in Colombia." While being among the first exhibitors of video art in Colombia 
demonstrates that the petitioner's work was original, the record lacks evidence supporting - - 
assertion that the petitioner's use of video technology was "revolutionaryn 
and an "artistic contribution of major significance." 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated that the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner did not establish that her work could be considered 
contributions of major significance to the field of video art, outside of the witness letters from 
individuals selected by the petitioner. We concur with the director's finding. Ultimately, evidence 
in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials 
prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. In this 
case, the record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original artistic contributions 
that have significantly influenced or impacted her field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other visual artists nationally or internationally, nor is there 
specific documentary evidence in the record demonstrating that her field has significantly changed 
as a result of her work. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has 
earned the respect and admiration of her personal contacts, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
her artwork is recognized beyond her acquaintances such that it equates to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
We cannot conclude that the reference letters and documentation pertaining to the petitioner's 
exhibitions are sufficient to meet this criterion. The preceding letters, while not without weight, 
cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord 
Page 12 
with other information or is in any way questionable. Id at 795; see also Matter of SofJici. 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of 
the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a 
visual artist who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's artwork has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout 
her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we 
cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A November 1980 article she wrote in Visual Arts (pages 40-41), a trimesteral magzine 
of the Museum of Modern Art of Mexico; 
2. An essay she authored in Mexico 1993 Encuentro Otras Graficas (pages 85-88), an 
anthology of art theory and criticsm edited by Juan Acha; 
3. A 2001 conference paper she authored in Actas Del XIV Congresso De La Asociacion 
International De Hispanistas; 
4. A September 15,2000 article she wrote in Hoy, a Spanish language newspaper published 
in New York, entitled "In Search of the Mexican Dream;" 
5. An October 28,2001 article in Hoy she wrote entitled "A day in the life of . . . the Center 
of Latin-American Studies;" 
6. An article she contributed to Blink Lifestyle Magazine in 2005; and 
7. An article she contributed to Blink Lifestyle Magazine that was published in June 2007. 
Items 4 and 5 do not constitute scholarly articles in the visual arts field. With regard to item 7, this 
article was published subsequent to the petition's filing date. As previously discussed, a petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the June 2007 in Blink Lifestyle Magazine 
article in this proceeding. Regarding the 2005 article in Blink Lfestyle Magazine, the reference letter 
from -1 states that the magazine "is published in Mexico, the United States, and 
Canada." The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included promotional material 
from Blink Lifestyle Magazine's media kit stating that the magazine "prints 20,000 magazines (100 
pages) per month" and has 5,000 subscriptions, but the limited distribution of the publication and the 
self-serving nature of its promotional material do not establish that magazine is a form of major media 
in Mexico, the United States, or Canada. Regarding items 1 through 7, the record does not include 
evidence (such as objective circulation information from an independent source) showing the 
distribution of the publications relative to other national media to demonstrate that the submitted articles 
were published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 13 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted correspondence, exhibition brochures, event programs, published material, and 
other documentation showing that her work has beendisplayed at places such as the Museum of 
Modern Art in Colombia (1978), the Museum of Modern Art in New York (1981), and the Museum of 
Modern Art in Mexico (1980s), and the Museum of Contemporary Art and Design in Costa Rica 
(2003). The record adequately demonstrates the significance of these artistic venues. However, the 
petitioner's display of her work at these museums is not sufficient to demonstrate that her national or 
international acclaim as a visual artist has been sustained subsequent to 2003. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Aside from her participation in an exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art and Design in Costa 
Rica in 2003, the petitioner has not established that her other exhibitions of the 1990s and 2000s equate 
to the exclusive showcases of an artist's work that are contemplated by this regulation for visual artists. 
For example, the petitioner has not established that having her work displayed at the 119 Gallery in 
Lowell, Massachusetts, Bus Boys and Poets in Washington, D.C., the Galeria del Teatro Angelina 
Peralta in Mazatlan, Mexico, the AIH conference, and in Videoteca Del Sur's collection is consistent 
with or indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. The self- 
serving promotional material for these organizations and the information in the reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to demonstrate a level of distinction that sets her more 
recent visual art displays apart from those of most others in her field. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits evidence of artistic engagements involving the petitioner that post-date the filing of this 
petition. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider artistic engagements that occurred subsequent to April 30, 2007 in this proceeding. While 
the petitioner's museum displays of 1978, the 1980s, and the one in 2003 appear to meet this criterion, 
they are not sufficient to demonstrate her sustained national or international acclaim as a visual artist 
during the years immediately preceding the filing date of this petition. 
Evidence that the alien has perJbrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner initially claimed to have performed in a leading or critical role for the AIH and the 
Universidad del Claustro de Sor Juana in Mexico. The petitioner submitted evidence of her AIH 
membership, documentation reflecting her participation in AIH's 2001 conference, and a letter 
stating that she assisted Universidad del Claustro de Sor Juana's faculty in developing "a new long 
distance Master's Degree Educational pilot program" in Colonial Culture and Literature. The 
director found that the petitioner's evidence did not establish that her role was leading or critical to the 
AIH or the university. We concur with the director's finding. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner was responsible for the AIH or the university's success or standing to a degree consistent with 
the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's findings for this criterion or argue that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. Rather, counsel states that the petitioner "no longer claims eligibility 
based upon having performed in a leading or critical role for AIH or Universidad del Claustro de Sor 
Juana in satisfaction of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii)." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted U.S. income tax returns 
reflecting that she received officer compensation from Xochitl Art & Design Corporation of $25,000 
in 2005 and $24,400 in 2006. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner 
to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis 
for comparison showing that her compensation was significantly high in relation to those of others in 
her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the 
evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the 
aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, 
the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that her acclaim as a visual artist has been 
sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally 
acclaimed achievements and recognition in the years immediately preceding the filing date of this 
petition. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
Page 15 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.