dismissed EB-1A Case: Watercolor Art

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .• N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
('\";00' TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 17 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section Z03(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § I 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-Z90B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
) 1 J;0 ; '/ /" J .. ,'/, _' '-.,1"_ .. I "" -'" 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 3 
(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 (USerS) 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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
Page 4 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, III 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U,S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[irl field of endeavor," 
I Specifically. the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel. substantive. or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
/d. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Translations 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the record of proceeding reflects that the 
petitioner submitted non-certified English language translations, partial translations, and foreign 
language documents without any English language translations. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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. 
Although at the time of the original filing of the petition the petitioner submitted a single 
certified translation, it is unclear which documents, if any, to which the certification pertains. 
The submission of a single translation certification that does not identify the document or 
documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) specifically requires a "full English 
language translation." However, the petitioner submitted partial translations for some of her 
foreign language documents. 
Finally, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted several documents without 
any English language translations, let alone fully certified translations. Because the petitioner 
failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot determine 
whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly. the evidence is not probative 
and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on April 30, 2009, seeks to classify the petitIoner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in watercolor arts. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
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 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
In the director's decision, he found: 
To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national 
circulation or distribution. It is the petitioner's burden of proof not only to submit 
the article itself, but also evidence that establishes that it was published in a 
qualifying publication. It can be expected that any publication can provide 
information as to its circulation. The petitioner did provide articles about her 
artist work and exhibitions. There were articles fro [sic 1 to 
to name a few. 
provide evidence in the record that the periodicals had national circulation or 
distribution. 
Based on the information in t he [sic 1 record the petitioner meets this criteria. 
While the director found that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding 
the "national circulation or distribution," the director then indicated that the petitioner met the 
criterion. It is not apparent from the director's decision if the petitioner established eligibility for 
this criterion. Nonetheless, will review the record of proceeding to determine if the petitioner 
meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). An application or petition 
that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even 
if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, aff'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see 
also So/tane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis). 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the following 
documentary evidence: 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
1. An uncertified translation of an announcement entitled, 
" February 20, 2006, unidentified author, 
2. of an article entitled, 
November 19, 2009, 
-3. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, 
February 18, 2006, unidentified author, 
4. An uncertified translation of a snippet entitled, 
January 3, 2009, uniIJentifi(!d atlthc.r, 
5. An announcement entitled, 
author, •••••• 
May 5, 2005, unidentified 
6. translation of an article entitled, 
1997 
7. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, 
.............. ' February 17,2006, 
8. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, 
unidentified author 
9. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, 
February 23, 2006, 
unidentified author, and 
10. and 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 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 classification is sought." 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. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
Page 8 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers] 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
"[sjuch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. " 
Regarding items I and 2, the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents. 
Moreover, regarding item 1, the petitioner failed to include the author of the announcement. 
Furthermore, the announcement is not about the petitioner relating to her work. Instead, the 
announcement merely publicizes an exhibition of the petitioner. Articles that are not about the 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 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). Regarding item 2, the article was published on November 19, 2009. However, the 
petition was filed on April 30, 2009. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
Therefore, we will not consider this item as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BlA 1981), that we cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. Nonetheless, 
the article is not about the to her work. Rather, the article is about 
exhibition, 
m,~ntlion.ed in the article as displaying her work at the exhibition, 
the article also mentions several other artists such as 
-
Regarding item 3, the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the article. In addition, 
the petitioner failed to include the author of the article. Regardless, a review of the article fails to 
reflect that it is about the petitio~ work. Instead, the article simply announces 
the petitioner's exhibition at the~. Articles that are not about the petitioner do 
not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Regarding item 4, the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the snippet, as well as 
to include the author of the snippet. Nevertheless, a review of the snippet fails to reflect 
l'UlJW,JlC'U material about the petitioner relating to her work. Instead, the snippet is about 
holding an exhibition at the Although the 
mentioned one time as being a teacher to the fact remains that the 
snippet is not about the petitioner relating to her work. 
1 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 9 
Regarding item 
exhibition at 
about the petitioner 
an announcement that publicizes the petitioner's 
As previously indicated, articles that are not 
Regarding item 6, the petitioner failed to submit a certified and full translation of the article. As 
the petitioner failed to submit a full translation of the article, the petitioner failed to establish that 
the article is published material about the petitioner relating to her work. However, based on the 
partial translation, the article appears to be about the ••••••••••••••• 
__ and not about the petitioner. the nor';ol 
the article also mentions other artists such as 
-Regarding item 7, while a review of the article reflects published material about the petitioner 
relating to her work, the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the article. 
Regarding items 8 and 9, the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the articles. 
Further, the petitioner failed to include the authors of the articles. Moreover, the articles are not 
primaril y about the petitioner. While the articles provide some brief background information 
about the petitioner, the articles are about the petitioner and _displaying their work 
at the as well as some backgroun~about 
and the petitioner's exhibition at 
Regarding item 10, the petitioner failed to include the date of the material. Furthermore, the 
material is not about the petitioner relating to her work. Instead, it merely reflects a section in a 
book that contains some of the petitioner's work. Based on the cover of the book submitted by 
the petitioner, it appears that the book contains the works of over 80 other artists. As such, the 
•••••• is not about the petitioner relating to her work; rather, the book is about various 
Chinese artists. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) also requires that the material 
be published "in professional or major trade publications or other media." The pet.i·t.iOller 
failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing 
are nrn""""rm 
Regarding the petitioner submitted 
information from 2001, that indicated that 
"major Chinese newspapers are found in ihe:-. ••••••••••••••••• and 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
dated March 25, 2002, from The New York Times that indicated that "[i]n recent 
months, the two biggest Chinese dailies in .. claims a 
readership of 50,000 in the New York area 
In addition, the petitioner submitted 
Page 10 
News). We are not persuaded that being considered as major Chinese newspapers in the United 
States also demonstrate professional or trade . or other media. Even 
when like 
far fall short in reflecting that they are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Regarding the petitioner submitted screenshots 
represents a press release for the The 
independent, objective evidence establishing that the 
trade publication or other major media. 
that 
failed to submit any 
is a professional or major 
As evidenced above, all of the petitioner's foreign language documentary evidence failed to 
comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requiring certified and full translations and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) also requiring the necessary translation and author of the material. 
Moreover, while the petitioner submitted one article reflecting published material about the 
petitioner and her work, the petitioner failed to establish that the material was published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Even if we were to find that the 
petitioner's single article met the regulatory requirements, the petitioner only established 
eligibility for one article in which the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires more than one. The burden is on the petitioner to establish every 
element of this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she 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 allied .field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." 
A review of the record of prc)ce·eding 
translation of a publication enl:itl(~d,1 
Nonetheless, based on the partial translation, the petitioner is listed as the 
At the time of the filing of the petition, counsel claimed that the petitoiner 
"editledJ and select[edl artwork for publication in the journal." However, counsel failed to submit 
any documentary evidence supporting his assertions. 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 fact, Fei Wang is listed as the "Chief 
Page 11 
Editor." The petitioner failed to establish that her role as a 
participated "as a judge of the work of others." 
The petitioner also submitted an uncertified translation of an 
demonstrates that she 
stating: 
apIJoillt [the petitioner] as the secretary of •••••••••••• 
and is responsible for the 
cultural exchange jobs in the U.S. including the contact, the creation of 
and art's development, research and exhibitions etc. 
The petitioner failed to submit any other documentary evidence establishing that her appointed role 
as secretary demonstrates that she participated "as a judge of the work of others." Indeed,_ 
description of the petitioner'S roles as a secretary fail to reflect that she was even expected to judge 
the work of others. Even if the appointment letter indicated that her position as secretary would 
involve the judging of the work of others, which it clearly does not, the petitioner failed to establish 
that she actually judged the work of others. 
As indicated above, the petitioner failed to submit certified and full translations pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted by the 
petitioner fails to reflect that she participated as the judge of the work of others pursuant to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence (d' the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion without addressing any of the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence of the display 
of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." In accordance with 
Kazarian 596 F.3d at 1122, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence reflecting 
that her work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Therefore, we withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
B. Final Merits Detennination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
Page 12 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner met the plain language of the regulation for one of the criteria, in which at least three 
are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies 
in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner who last entered the United States as a B-1 nonimmigrant has garnered minimal 
attention in the media and has displayed her artwork at some galleries, museums, and venues. 
However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that she "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that she "has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § ll53(b)(J)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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." The 
petitioner's evidence 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), 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As it relates to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we again note that the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that she has any published material about her relating to her work in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. It would be expected that an artist with sustained 
national or international acclaim would have substantial media attention reflecting that she "is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Even if the 
petitioner's documentary evidence reflected published material about her in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, which it did not, we are not persuaded that ten articles are 
reflective of "sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Likewise, while the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the judging criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on 
serving as a "Chair Man" of Art Status and being appointed as secretary for IAA. Notwithstanding 
that the petitioner failed to establish that she has ever judged the work others, the petitioner failed 
to submit evidence demonstrating that she judged acclaimed artists. C/, Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard). Even if the petitioner's role as involved reviewing the work of 
others, we carmot conclude that the petitioner's role demonstrates a level of expertise indicating 
that she is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Without evidence pre-dating the filing of ~hat sets the 
petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that serving as _ reflects that 
she has reviewed the work of nationally or internationally acclaimed artists, that she has received 
and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of artistic journals or 
publications, or that she served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). An evaluation of the significance of the 
petitioner's judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11. 
Furthermore, the petitioner established eligibility for the display crit~ 
eglllati·c m at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) based on her work displayed at ___ 
We also note that the petitioner submitted uncertified and/or 
cun1enltary evi(jefi(~e clairrting that the her work at the 
note 
evidence without any translations, let alone certified translations, as well as documentary evidence 
that failed to indicate where the alien's work was displayed. For example, the petitioner submitted a 
document indicating that the petitioner's work would be displayed between September 28, 2007 and 
October 10, 2007. However, the document failed to indicate where this display was to occur. We 
also note that the petitioner submitted on appeal the previously discussed article entitled,_ 
•••••••••••••••• dated November 19,2009, and a press release from the 
for the petitioner's display of her work on January 22, 2010. Eligibility must 
be established at the time of filing. Therefore, we will not consider this item as evidence to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. We also note iliat on appeal, the 
~~=~Of 
as well as generally claiming iliat her work was displayed 
around the world. However, the petitioner failed to submit any primary evidence of the display 
of her work pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Regardless, it is expected that an 
artist, such as the petitioner, would have her work displayed at exhibitions and showcases. 
However, the record contains no evidence to show, for instance, that the petitioner's exhibitions 
garnered any attention in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
examplc, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting the prestige of the 
exhibitions and that the exhibitions brought any critical acclaim. We are not persuaded that the 
Page 14 
mere exhibition of the petitioner's work is sufficient to establish the sustained national or 
international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(I )(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). In this case, the record of proceeding reflects uncertified translations, 
partial translations, and foreign language documents without any English translations. 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with the basic regulatory requirements such as 
providing the authors of the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
. Moreover, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence of her positions as 
and secretary without submitting documentation reflecting that the positions 
entailed the judging of the work of others. Finally, because of the deficiencies in the 
documentary evidence, the petitioner only that demonstrated that her work was displayed at two 
exhibitions. The lack of conforming and substantial documentation is not persuasive evidence 
that the petitioner has "extensive documentation" and is an individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated her "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
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. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
IV. Conclusion 
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 and 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)( 1 )(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
Page 15 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.