remanded EB-1A Case: Art Restoration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 6, 2024 In Re: 34612506 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an art restorer, 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: (1) the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required; 
(2) she would continue working in her field of expertise in the United States, and (2) her entry will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
IT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner studied art restoration in Russia, earning certification as an art restorer, qualified to 
conserve and restore artworks from the 16th century and later. The Petitioner worked at the I 
Russia, as leader of the restoration 
department from 1981 to 2006 and as deputy director for scientific research from 2006 to 2020. She has 
been in the United States since she entered as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in May 2022. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 claims to have satisfied eight of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only the first criterion, relating to prizes or awards. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has satisfied all eight claimed criteria. 
Before we discuss the individual criteria, we note the Director's assertion that qualifying evidence 
must have existed at the time of filing. We agree that a petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements 
at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). But the same regulation also requires that 
the petitioner must continue to meet those requirements throughout the adjudication of the petition. 
As such, evidence that originated after the filing date cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing, 
but could be relevant to establishing continued eligibility after the filing date. 
2 
I 
Also, we agree with the Petitioner that much of the evidence that the Director declined to consider, 
submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), actually dates from before the filing date, even 
if it was not yet in the record at the time of filing. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three other criteria, as 
discussed below. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe 
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). 
The Petitioner documented her membership on two "Expert Councils" of the Ministry of Culture of the 
Republic of Karelia. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted meeting minutes showing she 
participated in "[c ]onsideration of candidates for awards from the Government of the Republic of Karelia 
to members of creative unions ... and personal awards ... for gifted students and graduate students." 
In the denial decision, the Director repeated the assertion that "the evidence does not show the petitioner 
actually reviewed any work or otherwise acted as a judge of the work of others." The Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of unspecified evidence in response to the RFE, but stated that 
"[t]he evidence must have been in existence as of the date the petition was filed." As the Petitioner notes 
on appeal, the meeting minutes all date from 2016-2020, several years before the petition's May 2023 
filing date. 
The Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that she meets the requirements of the 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
A scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Scholarly articles include published 
conference presentations at nationally or internationally recognized conferences. Id. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged only one of the Petitioner's articles, which the Director 
determined does not qualify as scholarly because "[i]t appears that the [intended] audience may be the 
general public." 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director "erred by disregarding [the] other five 
(5) research articles authored by [the Petitioner]." Some of the Petitioner's published works appear to be 
from academic conferences, at least some of which were national rather than local or regional. 
The Director did not address these materials or explain why they do not satisfy the requirements of the 
criterion. We therefore withdraw this determination by the Director. 
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
3 
The Petitioner has restored numerous art works that went on to be displayed, usually at I The 
Director concluded: "The evidence does not establish that she created or developed the paintings because 
the petitioner restored the artwork and did not create them." 
We agree with the general principle that, when a painting is displayed, it is the work of the artist that is 
on display. But the record provides an important distinction. The Petitioner's initial filing included 
evidence about a 2005 exhibition at I I with a title variously translated as I I or 
______ A 2005 article from the Russian online publication Museums ofRussia described 
this exhibition as being "dedicated to the work of restorers," specifically the Petitioner and a colleague at 
I I The record indicates that this exhibition focused on examples of restoration work, rather than 
paintings themselves. 
This 2005 exhibition appears to be sufficient to establish the display of the Petitioner's work at an 
artistic exhibition. 
Because the above discussion shows that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not discuss the other claimed criteria, and therefore reserve discussion 
on them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies 
are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence. The next 
step is to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her 
sustained national or international acclaim; that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor; and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. A final merits determination involves analyzing an individual's accomplishments and 
weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, and see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
We will remand the matter in order for the Director to make a final merits determination. 
In doing so, the Director must bear in mind that the determination involves consideration of the totality 
of the record, rather than simply re-evaluating the evidence submitted under each of the ten underlying 
criteria. The Director must determine whether the record as a whole shows that the Petitioner has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
Of particular concern in this case, the Director must consider the extent to which the Petitioner has 
achieved recognition at a national or international level. Evidence focusing on the Republic of KareIia 
may not be sufficient in this regard, because the Republic of Karelia is a political subdivision of the 
Russian Federation, rather than an independent nation in its own right. Therefore, recognition in the 
Republic of Karelia is not necessarily national or international acclaim. 
4 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that she "is coming to the United States 
to continue work in the area of expertise" as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), and that her "entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States" 
as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. We will remand the matter because the Director 
did not adequately explain the basis for these conclusions. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) states that a petitioner can establish their intention to continue 
in the area of expertise by submitting "a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or 
she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." The Petitioner submitted such a statement 
with the petition, expressing an intention to restore icons for Orthodox churches; consult on 
conservation, restoration, and authentication of tempera paintings; and create a college-level course 
on art restoration. The Director did not explain why these plans were not specific enough. Also, the 
Director did not address materials that the Petitioner submitted regarding the nature and purpose of art 
restoration, which may illuminate the question of how her work would benefit the United States. 
The Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, 
the Director has not met this requirement with respect to the Petitioner's intention to continue working 
in the area of expertise and prospective benefit to the United States. The Director must further consider 
these issues, and the arguments that the Petitioner made on appeal regarding them. If the Director 
again concludes that the Petitioner has not met these requirements, then the Director must more fully 
explain the reasons for that conclusion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will remand the matter to the Director for a final merits determination, with particular attention to 
the issue of national or international rather than regional acclaim, and for further consideration of the 
issues of the Petitioner's plans to continue working in her area of expertise and prospective benefit to 
the United States. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5