dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19795789 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 10, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a visual artist who has conducted numerous workshops and has displayed her work 
in galleries and exhibitions, primarily in Colombia. The Petitioner intends to continue working as a 
visual artist in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed to meet three of the ten criteria, namely: original 
contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii); and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(vii) . 
We agree, as the record establishes that the Petitioner has displayed her work in a number of galleries 
and exhibitions in Colombia. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous, and maintains that she 
meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria and is otherwise eligible for the classification sought. 
We will address the Petitioner's claims with respect to the individual evidentiary criteria below. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original contributions, 
but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner 
may show that the 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. 
2 
The Petitioner claims to have made original contributions in the field of visual arts, with a special 
emphasis on Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that she has 
pioneered new techniques inl land has developed a novel method of working withl land 
I lcolors, and submitted numerous letters of support from experts in her field in support of this 
assertion. In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the testimonial letters submitted 
were highly complementary of her work and professional accomplishments. However, the Director 
determined that the testimonial evidence did not establish that she has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. He included quotes from several letters and emphasized that while 
they discuss the Petitioner's artistic vision and technical knowledge as applied to specific I 
and the letters lacked specificity as to how the Petitioner's work has impacted the field or 
how her techniques have been widely used or accepted within the field. The Director cited case law 
indicating that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, consider 
advisory opinions as expert testimony, but that USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding eligibility. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
The Petitioner asserts that she has develo ed a novel method in which she creates colored 
' She further claims that she _________________ __________ 
has pioneered new techniques in where she applies and combines different materials and 
__ _,lresulting in a I effect which she states is a I appearance. According to 
the Petitioner, she has displayed examples of her work which incorporate these techniques at numerous 
galleries and exhibitions, and has conducted workshops where she mentors other artists in the 
implementation of her methods. The Petitioner asserts that the letters submitted in support of the petition 
and in response to the Director's request for evidence support these assertions. 
In general, the letters recount the Petitioner's achievements in I I and I I but do not 
demonstrate that her contributions in the artisan field have made the required impact in the field. Upon 
review of the record, we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the 
requirements of this criterion. 
We observe that the individuals who provided letters in support of the petition attest to the Petitioner's 
artistic and technical talents as a visual artist, highlight the techniques she has presented in various 
workshops during the course of her career, and contain assertions that she is well known and highly 
regarded within the artisan field. We have no reason to question the credentials of the industry experts 
who provided letters in support of the petition or to doubt the credibility of their statements or the 
sincerity of their praise for the Petitioner's work. However, the letters focus on the Petitioner's 
contributions to specific projects, workshops, or her overall standing in the field rather than 
specifically articulating how her contributions are of major significance in the field and have impacted 
subsequent work. We address a representative sample of the letters below but have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
curator of I Gallery inl I praises the Petitioner's work with 
both and She states that the Petitioner has held various exhibitions at her gallery, and 
praises her "excellent composition in each and every work where she has been well-known recognized 
for her work and beautiful pieces of art." While she describes the "great aesthetic sense and techniques" 
the Petitioner applies to her I lwork, and praises the Petitioner's development ofl I 
3 
techniques and I I' style which she claims "have been used by other I her 
statements do not demonstrate how the Petitioner 's specific contributions have impacted or influenced 
subsequent work in her field. While I generally discusses the Petitioner's novel methods 
and her success in her field, she does not provide specific, detailed information identifying or 
explaining the unusual influence her I I and methods have had in her field, or 
corroborating evidence demonstrating that such methods have been widely adopted and implemented 
by other artists as claimed . Having a diverse or unique skill set is not in-and-of-itself a contribution 
of major significance, unless a petitioner shows that she has used those skills to impact or influence 
the field. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has taught her methods through various classes and workshops. 
Director of the Museum in Colombia, states that in addition to 
exhibiting her and the Petitioner has taught her l method to the museum's 
students, "many of whom now are well-known" artists." I an Italian contemporary 
artist, states that she attended several of the Petitioner's workshops and praises her as a "unique artist and 
mentor," noting that "she perfectly blends the colors that are unique and she has perfect[ ed] them over 
the years."I I further states that she hopes that the Petitioner "has the opportunity to expose 
her unique art and continue to mentor other artists with her techniques which are so wonderful. ... " 
Colombian artist and stained glass designer_ ] who attended the Petitioner ' sl I 
workshops, states that "she demonstrated great ability to handle the I I theme,"' 
highlighting her precise and unique application of 'I and a high degree of 
I I in order creative original and beautifuH praises her work 
and claims that he implemented her techniques in several of his own projects. 
The authors of these letters attest to the talent of the Petitioner , but do not provide specific examples 
of how the Petitioner's teaching methods or landl I techniques have influenced the work 
of other visual artists, or otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Also, the submitted letters do not include an explanation as to how the Petitioner's choice of methods 
differs from that of other I I or I artists. The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires that the Petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited 
to the persons that she teaches or mentors. See Visinscaia , 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact 
in the field as a whole). Moreover, while the authors praises the Petitioner's innovative methods 
pertaining to I and her I I ' method for I lthey do not identify and specific 
examples of how the Petitioner's methods have influenced the field ofl I and or 
otherwise constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. Vague, solicited letters 
from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
We further note that while several of the authors claim to have learned a great deal from the workshops 
they attended and praise her expertise and teaching methods, none of the authors indicate that the 
Petitioner has gained recognition for such methods or for significant contributions in the field. 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the 
field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
4 
users may evaluate the content of those letters so as to detennine whether they support the 
petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Moreover, we note thar I she "hopes" that the Petitioner "has the opportunity to expose her 
unique art" and "continue to mentor other artists." The regulation requires that the Petitioner has already 
made major and significant impacts within her field. Furthermore, it can be expected that, to rise to 
the level of contributions of major significance, other artists would have already reproduced the 
Petitioner's methods and applied those methods in their work. Here, I I comments 
suggest that the Petitioner's methods have not yet been widely implemented and have not yet 
significantly impacted the field. 
The Petitioner also presented evidence regarding her success in the sale of her artwork. While the 
Petitioner's methods and individual pieces may be unique in the art world, she has not demonstrated 
how her work has influenced the field aside from being distinct from other artwork. While the letters 
in the record from buyers of her work indicate that her work is a favorite among various collectors, 
the Petitioner does not explain how being a favorite of collectors is having a discemable impact in her 
field. While any art with exposure such as the Petitioner's can be viewed as contributing to the field, 
she must also demonstrate that her contributions are of major significance in the field. To rise to the 
level of contributions of major significance, the Petitioner 's work can be expected to have an influence 
on similar artists and similar works of art. Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
With regard to the Petitioner's display of her work in galleries and participation in various art 
exhibitions, the regulations contain a separate criterion for display of work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. 8 e .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Evidence relating to or even meeting the 
display criterion is not presumptive evidence that the Petitioner also meets this criterion. The 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for artistic 
display and original contributions of major significance in the field, users clearly does not view the 
two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate 
criteria. The Petitioner did not explain how her work has substantially impacted the visual arts field, 
has influenced the work of other artists, or otherwise equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. At best, the evidence shows that the art world has noticed the Petitioner's 
work and has considered it to be worthy of showing. This consideration, without evidence that her 
work also has affected and/or advanced the field in a significant way, is insufficient to show that the 
Petitioner's work constitutes "contributions of major significance in the field," as required under the 
plain language of the criterion. 
The opinions of the Petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. The 
preceding references highlight their acquisition of her work, their display of her work in their respective 
galleries, and their admiration for her as a mentor, and her skills as a visual artist. However, they fail to 
provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's artwork and methods equate to original contributions 
of "major significance" in the field. As noted previously, users may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
5 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the individual's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2. 
Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became aware of the Petitioner's reputation 
are important considerations. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's original 
work has been unusually influential, has substantially impacted her field, or has otherwise risen to the 
level of artistic contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5 (h)(3 )(ix) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in her field. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The Petitioner claims that she is highly compensated for the sale of her artwork. The record includes 
notarized statements from four collectors attesting that they have purchased pieces of the Petitioner's 
artwork for the collective sums of $3,000, $3,500, $4,000, and $4,000, respectively, between the years 
of 199 5 and 2020. The Petitioner also submitted photographs of pieces of art listing the value of each 
piece (ranging from $300 to $1,000 per piece) when sold, but the Petitioner's name is not listed in the 
photographs as the artist of those works. 
The record also contains testimonials from gallery owners attesting to the Petitioner's commercial 
sales while associated with each respective gallery. For example, lofl I Gallery 
states that the Petitioner's work drew sales of $6,000 between 2013 and 2015.I I of 
I I claims that the Petitioner was "linked" to his gallery for several years and that her works 
earned a total of $3,000 during that period; however, the time period in which the sales were accrued 
was not specified. I I ofl I Gallery indicates that the sale of the 
Petitioner's artwork by the gallery between 1995 and 2000 earned $3,500. 
Notwithstanding the above, this regulatory criterion requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that she 
commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services "in relation to others in 
the field." The Petitioner provided limited documentation of her past remuneration for her artwork, 
and the record lacks comparative information to establish that she commands significantly high 
remuneration in relation to others in her field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she 
satisfies 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 lesser 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 
6 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
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. Here, the Petitioner 
has established that she is a skilled visual artist specializing in the field ofl landl I and 
that she has gained recognition for her unique works or art as well as her mentoring abilities. But she 
has not shown that this recognition rises to the required level of 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 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 reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7