dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

#M@ing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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 1153(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. 9 103.5 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. 5 103,5(a)(l)(i). 
/ Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (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. 
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: 
(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. 
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. tj 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 
he 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 and an art director. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an 
Page 3 
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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
stating that he was awarded aFellowship to pursue graduate studies leading to a  asters 
in Computer Art at the School of Visual Arts in New York from 1998 to 2000. This fellowship 
represents financial support for the petitioner's graduate studies rather than a nationally or 
internationilly recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. University study is 
not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a field of endeavor. The 
petitioner's receipt of the "Fellowship, limited by its terms to students, is not an indication 
that he "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). Receipt of such a fellowship offers no meaningful comparison between the 
petitioner and artists working in the field who have long since completed their educational training. 
Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology, stating that he was "the 2001 recipient of the 
Leonardo Award for Excellence. The Leonardo Award for Excellence recognizes excellence in an 
article published in the journal Leonardo." The petitioner also submitted a press release by Andrea 
Blum stating: 
LeonardoIISAT is pleased to announce that the 2001 Leonardo Award for Excellence has 
), in which digital video, 3D animations and interactivity merge in a series of 
installations. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized and it is his burden to establish every 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 2001 
Leonardo Award for Excellence had a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting 
organization. 
The petitioner submitted a November 16, 2001 letter from , Director of the = 
Foundation, stating that the petitioner received ''I for the Arts" in 1999. This 
grant funded the petitioner's project '" A March 30, 2007 letter from Mr. 
states that the focus of the petitioner's project was "new researches in technologies applied 
to the arts." On appeal, the petitioner submits an October 2002 Picasso Foundation press release 
about the t stating: "An international panel comprised by gallery and museum 
directors, reviews the applications. The selection is based on the merits of previous work of the 
- - 
artists, and a proposed project to be executed and exhibited in the Picasso Art Museum . . . ." 
With regard to the Picasso Grant and the other art project grants for which the petitioner applied and 
received funding (such as INCIARTE), it is noted that such grants are primarily intended to fund 
future work rather than to recognize past achievement. The past achievements of the artist are a 
factor in receiving project grants. The funding institution has to be assured that the artist is capable 
of performing the proposed work. Nevertheless, a grant is principally designed to fund future work, 
and is not a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellent achievement. 
Furthermore, we note that funding for many of the petitioner's projects was awarded not through 
independent nomination, demonstrating the field's regard for his ability, but upon his application to 
the organization providing the grant. Finally, we note that it is not unusual for artwork to be funded 
by grants from a variety of public and private sources. Therefore, receipt of a project grant does not 
automatically elevate an artist to the very top of his field. 
The petitioner submitted an April 7,2004 letter from the New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) 
stating that he was "awarded a $7000 NYFA Fellowship in the category of Video." The letter states: 
"We hope that this assistance from NYFA will be of great value in furthering your work as an 
artist." The petitioner also submitted a May 27, 2004 NYFA press release stating: "This year 148 
fellowships were awarded to 151 New York State artists . . . ." On appeal, the petitioner submits 
information from NYFA stating: "Each year, NYFA provides more than $1 1 million in grants and 
services and offers fellowships to as many as 170 New York State originating artists." Aside from 
the large number of NYFA fellowships granted annually, we note that eligibility for these 
fellowships is limited to "artists living and working in the state of New York" as stated in the April 
2, 2007 letter from NYFA. As such, the petitioner's receipt of a NYFA fellowship reflects regional 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a January 3 1, 2007 document from the Government of Andalusia's Public 
Company for Management of Cultural Programs stating that it agreed to grant him 13,500 euros in 
support of his education and training (specified as "Course of Training in N.Y."). In discussing this 
funding, an April 16,2007 letter from 
 Director of Museums, Cultural Ministry 
of the Andalusian Government states: 
This year the Spanish government, through INCIARTE, has dedicated 900,000 euros to 
artistic and cultural endeavors within Andalusia, throughout Spain, and abroad. . . . Of the 
nearly 500 highly qualified applicants, only one third received funding. [The petitioner's] 
project was among these. . . . [The petitioner] was granted $13,500 euros towards the 
realization of his project. Some of these funds are dedicated to tuition at New York 
University where [the petitioner] is involved in research and study of Applied Arts . . . . 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's receipt of such governmental funding constitutes a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence rather than financial support 
for his ongoing training and education. 
The petitioner submitted letters from the Institute of Youth of the Spanish Ministry of Work and 
Social Affairs, the Government of Youth for the City Hall of Malaga, and the Andalusian Institute of 
Youth in Malaga informing him that his work was selected for project funding, prizes, or exhibition. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The English language translations accompanying the 
preceding letters were incomplete and were not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation. Further, the letters from the Government of Youth for the City Hall of Malaga and the 
Andalusian Institute of Youth in Malaga reflect local or regional recognition rather than national or 
international recognition. With regard to the letters that discuss "young artist" contests in which the 
petitioner earned recognition and the July 13, 2001 Ietter discussing project funding from the 
Institute of Youth, we do not find that this documentation indicates that he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner faced competition from throughout his field, rather 
than limited to his approximate age group. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Cornmr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that an 
artist who has had success in age-restricted artistic competition should necessarily qualify for an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small 
2 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the Court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the Court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 6 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." There is no 
evidence showing that the awards and project funding cited in the preceding governmental letters 
qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's 
field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he 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 classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner submitted articles about him in publications such as ABC, Sur, El Mundo, and El Pais. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted circulation statistics and 
Spanish newspaper rankings showing that these publications qualify as major media. As such, the 
petitioner has established that he meets 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 alliedfield of speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for top 
artists is of far greater probative value than judging a regional youth or student competition. 
The petitioner submitted a March 15, 2007 letter from 
 , Alumni 
Society of the School of Visual Arts, New York, stating: 
I have . . . had the pleasure of working with [the petitioner] when he served, at my invitation, 
on the jury for our Alumni Scholarship Awards. He is the most acclaimed computer artist 
that we have had serve on our jury, and his contributions were invaluable. He has a 
commanding knowledge of his field, which combined with his amazing intellect and vast 
professional experience raised the quality of the whole jury to the highest level. And he 
committed a tremendous amount of time as a volunteer to prepare for the jury and to judge 
the work during a lengthy session. 
Page 7 
onse to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a May 19, 2007 letter 
Alumni Affairs, School of Visual Arts, New York, stating: 
[Wlhen we choose individuals to serve on our Alumni Scholarship Awards panel and rely on 
their artistic expertise to judge applications and work samples, [the petitioner] was our top 
choice. In light of his achievements and given the fact that he was our choice among 
countless numbers of other qualified candidates, [the petitioner] is clearly recognized among 
his peers as an individual of extraordinary ability as a media artist. 
We cannot ignore that the petitioner attended the School of Visual Arts from 1998 to May 2001. 
The petitioner has not established that evaluating student candidates for scholarships at his alma 
mater is indicative of national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
The Andalusian Government contest in Spain is a yearly art event, which attracts applicants 
from all over the country. Typically, 600 individuals submit their work for review by the 
evaluation committee. 
The fact that [the petitioner] was requested to serve as a juror on the Andalusian Government 
Contest clearly signifies his national recognition as a [sic] artist of extraordinary ability. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." The petitioner has not 
established that evaluating student scholarship applicants for his alma mater and for youth in an art 
contest sponsored by a regional government, who have not yet begun working in the field, meet this 
requirement. Further, the record does not include supporting evidence establishing the level of 
acclaim associated with his involvement. Nor is there evidence showing the dates of the petitioner's 
participation, the specific work judged by him, the names of those he evaluated, or documentation of 
his assessments. Without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner has judged artists 
already working in the field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several reference letters praising his talent as an 
artist. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of artistic contributions of major 
significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions 
that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
Page 8 
of Spain Center, New York University, 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] for the past eight years and I feel I can strongly recommend 
him for his outstanding talent. 
At the professional level, [the petitioner] has been working as an Art Director for the King 
Center of New York University for the past four years . . . . 
[The petitioner's] artworks are always of an original and surprising quality to be such a 
young artist. His resume is impressive with more than 40 worldwide shows and several 
prestigious scholarships, among them, one of the great renowned in Spain from the Picasso 
Foundation. 
With so much success so early in his career and knowing [the petitioner] personally and for a 
long while, I am sure that he has great potential and he will reach the top of the international 
art world in years to come. 
Cultural Counselor of the Embassy of Spain in the United States, states: "[The 
young artist with an impressive curriculum of international exhibitions, awards and 
recognitions. . . . W; hold no doubts that [the petitioner] will become an important figure in modern 
- 
Contemporary art history." Similarly, 
  oru us an Art ~al1eG~irector:states that the 
petitioner "stands out as one of the most promising artists of his generation." 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what may, might, or could one day 
result from the petitioner's work, rather than how his past achievements already qualify as original 
contributions of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the 
top at some unspecified future time. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Chair, Master of Fine Arts Computer Art, and Director of Computer Education, 
School of Visual Arts, states: 
I first met [the petitioner] when he entered the MFA Computer Art Program . . . . [The 
petitioner] graduated in 2001 with a specialization in digital fine art and installation art. His 
thesis project was titled , and explored the topics of reality, 
artificial reproduction, and sexuality. 
 He wrote an essay about the artwork, which was 
published . . . in Leonardo . . . . 
I recent[ly] published Art of the Digital Age, the first illustrated survey of digital art, with 
Thames & Hudson and included [the petitioner's] creative work in the book. 
 [The 
petitioner's] work was one of over one hundred artists selected for the book . . . . 
While the petitioner published an essay about his thesis project and his work was included in a book 
by his academic supervisor at the School of Visual Arts, there is no evidence showing that his work 
constitutes a contribution of major significance in contemporary art. 
I have known [the petitioner] for six years now. . . . In 2006, I had the honor of hosting a 
solo show of his new work at my gallery. 
[The petitioner] is one of the few Spanish artists that always constantly search for new 
mediums of expression. His work stands out for its innate intelligence and obsessive 
meticulousness in addition to its powerful contents and technique. Although technology 
plays an important part in [the petitioner's] work, his method and beauty of the pieces he 
carefully creates, is what really makes him a force to be reckoned with the art world. 
Assistant Professor of Fine Arts, Pace University, states: "[The petitioner's] work 
is highly regarded in the various New York digital art communities. . . . His works - which are 
gaining a local, national, and international reputation, are masterful from both technical and 
conceptual standpoints." 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his artistic achievements constitute 
original contributions of major significance in his field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 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's artwork has earned the admiration of those providing letters of 
recommendation, there is nothing to demonstrate that his work has had major significance in the 
field at large. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on 
other artists nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a 
result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 
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 of support from the 
petitioner's personal contacts 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. Thus, the 
content of the writers' 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 an artist who has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
As part of his thesis project at the School of Visual Arts, the petitioner wrote an essay about his 
artwork which was published in Leonardo. There is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that Leonardo qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. The petitioner submitted a November 4, 2005 letter from -~ 
Managing Editor, Leonardo, asserting that her journal "is considered internationally to be the 
premier scholarly journal in the art-science-technology field," but there is no supporting evidence for 
this self-serving statement from the journal's edit~r.~ Further, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner's authorship of more than one article. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that his work was displayed at the Sundance Film 
Festival in Utah. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that his work has been displayed 
at museums such as the Seoul Museum of Art in South Korea and at solo exhibitions such as the 
Picasso Foundation Museum in Spain. Published media reports confimi the significance of the 
preceding exhibitions. As such, the petitioner has established that he meets this second criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of which are 
required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
3 
 For example, there is no evidence showing that the journal has significant national or international distribution. 
Page 11 
Documentation in the record indicates that the alien was the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition. Although the words "extraordinary ability" are used in the Act for 
classification of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 and the first preference employment-based 
immigrant categories, the statute and regulations define the term differently for each classification. 
Section 101(a)(46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary ability' means, for purposes of section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction." The 0-1 regulation reiterates that "[elxtraordinary 
ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard 
than that required for the immigrant classification, which defines 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). The evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also 
differ in several respects, for example, nominations for awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 
eligibility, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear 
statutory and regulatory distinction between these two classifications, the petitioner's receipt of 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification is not evidence of his eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability. 
While USCIS has approved an 0-1 nonimrnigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, that 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, 
if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted that many 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 US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time 
reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see 
also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding 
that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on 
a reassessment of the petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers 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 the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.