remanded EB-1A Case: Art And Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 35563226 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner describes herself as an artist, designer, and inventor. She seeks classification under the 
employment-based, frrst-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with 
"extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must 
demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and extensively document recognition of 
their achievements in their fields. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met one of ten initial evidentiary requirements - two less than needed for a final merits 
determination. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts her satisfaction of five other evidentiary criteria. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she submitted documentation satisfying two additional evidentiary criteria: 
participation as a judge of other's work in her field; and display of her work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a final 
merits determination and entry of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise 
commensurate with "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). 
Evidence of extraordinary ability must initially demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, 
international recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the other statutory 
requirements, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) must then make a final merits 
determination as to whether the record, as a whole, establishes their sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very 
top. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010);2 see generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.(2)(B), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
A. Facts and Procedural History 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Nigerian native and citizen, received a bachelor of science 
degree in sociology from a university in her home country. While still in school, she created her own 
fashion line, establishing a company to make handbags and accessories. Her 
and designed to raise awareness of women's issues, has drawn attention. Although 
lacking formal art education or training, she has branched out from handbags to designing sculptures 
and other artwork. 
The Petitioner states that, in the United States, she plans to continue her work in her field. She states: 
"I intend to continue in my creative endeavors and working towards major collaborations: licensing 
and distributing my works throughout the United States and globally." 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. She must therefore meet at least three of the ten evidentiary requirements at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner submitted published material about 
herself relating to her work in her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). She claims that she also 
provided evidence of: 
• Her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in her field; 
• Her membership in professional associations in the field requiring their members' outstanding 
achievements; 
• Her participation as a judge of others' work in the field; 
• Her original contributions of major significance in the field; and 
• Display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 The record shows the Petitioner's residence within the ninth federal judicial circuit. Thus, we must follow applicable 
precedent decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this matter. See Jama v. Immigr. & Customs 
Enf't, 543 U.S. 335, 350 n.10 (2005) ("With rare exceptions, [a federal agency] follows the law of the circuit in which the 
individual case arises"). 
2 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vii). The Petitioner's evidence must "objectively meet[] 
the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type of evidence." 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.(2)(B). 
B. Judge of Others' Work 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit evidence of their "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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). A petitioner must show that they not only 
received an invitation to judge others' work in the same or allied field, but also that they actually 
participated in the judging. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). 
The Petitioner stated that several art galleries and artists contracted her to review art and mentor artists. 
She provided letters from gallery owners and other organizations stating her work for them as a 
reviewer and mentor. She also pointed to copies of newspaper articles that she claims confirm her 
work as an art reviewer and judge. 
As the Director found, the newspaper articles do not meet this evidentiary requirement. The articles 
consist of the same piece about the Petitioner published in three different newspapers. In relevant part, 
the piece states: 
A designer and innovator of great repute, [the Petitioner] wields an overwhelming 
influence in the art and creative firmament in Nigeria as she has worked herself to the 
top, becoming a go-to person for those still learning the rope[s] and others seeking to 
broker new grounds through insightful knowledge in the industry. 
The piece's plain language states that the Petitioner has influenced and helped others in her field. But 
the piece does not establish that she "judged" their work. The newspaper articles therefore do not 
meet the evidentiary requirement. See Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, No. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ, 2008 WL 
10697512, *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2008) (holding that an employer's letter describing a petitioner as "a 
consultant for the examination committee" did not demonstrate the petitioner's claimed judging 
activities in the role). 
The Director discounted the letters from art gallery owners, finding that they lacked supporting 
evidence of the Petitioner's claimed judging activities. But we do not generally require corroborating 
evidence of such non-party letters. Cf.In re Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 164-65 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
( requiring documentary evidence to support a petitioner's assertion). 
A letter from one of the art gallery owners states that the Petitioner: 
has helped to develop and judge Sculptural works created by me and other partnered 
Artists as well as other Artwork contracted to us by Private Individuals and 
Government Agencies: I have engaged her knowledge[,] skill and expertise in 
determining the final outcome. 
3 
We would prefer a more detailed letter. But we find the document sufficient to meet this evidentiary 
requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her participation as a judge of others' work in her field. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
C. Display at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the display of the [ noncitizen] 's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). USCIS first determines whether the displayed 
materials constitute a petitioner's work product. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). 
Second, the Agency determines whether the venues that displayed a petitioner's work were artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. Id. In this context, the term "exhibition" means "a public showing (as of 
works of art ... )." Exhibition, Merriam-Webster.com, www.merriam-webster.com. 
The Director found the Petitioner's evidence insufficient to demonstrate displays of her work at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. The Director, however, disregarded printouts of art gallery websites 
showcasing the Petitioner's work. USCIS policy specifies that artistic exhibition and showcase venues 
may be "virtual or otherwise." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). The printouts submitted by the 
Petitioner were from "artistic" websites. They therefore constitute evidence of displays of her work 
at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her work's display in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
D. Remaining Issues 
The Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary requirements for the requested 
immigrant visa category. We therefore need not reach and hereby reserve consideration of her 
appellate arguments regarding the other evidentiary criteria she claims to have met. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). 
USCIS must now make a final merits determination on the Petitioner's filing. The Director did not 
make such a finding. Rather than decide the issue in the first instance, we will remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director must determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated sustained national 
or international acclaim and recognition for her achievements in her field commensurate with one of 
that small percentage who has risen to the field's very top. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(B)(2). The Director should consider any potentially relevant evidence ofrecord, even if it does 
not fit one of the regulatory criteria or was not presented as comparable evidence. Id. The petition's 
approval or denial should depend on the evidence's type and quality. Id. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three evidentiary criteria. USCIS must now make a final merits 
determination on the petition. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for a final merits 
determination and entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5