remanded EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 16, 2024 In Re: 30558946 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a watercolor 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 met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the noncitizen 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 noncitizen seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the noncitizen'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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, the petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet 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). 
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. 20 I 0) 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that since 2019 the Petitioner has participated in several art 
contests and exhibited 
her artwork in group fine art exhibitions. In 2020 she completed training in academic drawing at the 
According to her personal statement 
submitted with the petition, the Petitioner indicates that she intends to continue her work as an artist 
in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must show that she satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed she could satisfy the following criteria: 
• (i), Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements of their members; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual and their work; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vii), Display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations; and 
• (x), Commercial successes in the performing arts. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria, 
judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 1 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that she did not establish her eligibility with 
respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires evidence that the individual has performed in leading 
or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), which focuses on the 
volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of a petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. 
2 
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that the Director's determinations with respect 
to the remaining referenced criteria were conclusory and did not specifically address all the Petitioner's 
claims or evidence. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Because the Director's decision does not 
provide a complete analysis and full explanation of the reasons for denial, we will withdraw that 
decision and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion 
below. That decision should include an analysis of the specific evidence submitted in support of each 
criterion claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
which requires submission of evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's prizes or awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Although the denial decision 
referenced awards certificates, official programs, and articles pertaining to com etitions such as the 
2021 I IWatercolor Contest & Exhibition; 2022 
Watercolour Exposition I 2020 cover contest; 2021 
________ Watercolour Exhibition; and 2023 I I Exhibition of the 
Watercolor Society, the decision did not otherwise address the Petitioner's claims or evidence related 
to this criterion. 
Instead, the Director made conclusory determinations that "the evidence is insufficient to ascertain 
whether the awards or prizes are nationally recognized or internationally recognized, for excellence in 
the field of endeavor, and in beneficiary's field" and "[t]he record does not contain sufficient evidence 
to satisfy each of the plain language elements of this criterion," without addressing why the 
documentation submitted in support of this criterion was not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. 
On remand, the Director should review the record, including the appeal, and issue a new determination 
with respect to this criterion based on the totality of the evidence the Petitioner submitted. 
In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which requires submission of evidence demonstrating that she is a member in an 
association in her field that requires outstanding achievements of its members, with membership 
eligibility judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. The Director's decision 
acknowledged the Petitioner submitted evidence of"[ m ]embership in and documentation about" the 
International Federation of Artists & Creative Union of Artists of Russia; International Watercolor 
Society IWS Globe Society; American Watercolor Society; and thel !Watercolor Society. The 
Director determined that "association bylaws do not state they require outstanding achievements or 
use recognized national or international experts to determine which individuals qualify for 
membership," but it is unclear what "association" is referenced. As the matter will be remanded, the 
Director is instructed to re-examine the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, and the 
Petitioner's letters explaining how the evidence supports her eligibility. 
3 
With respect to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner submitted 
several articles from Russian online publications that discuss her and her work in her field. The 
Director's decision briefly referenced only "various publications" and concluded the Petitioner did not 
submit "other circulation data to compare with those of this website, or information about its intended 
audience." However, the Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of documentation 
in support of her claim that one or more of the submitted articles was published in a major trade 
publication or other major media. On remand, the Director should review the record to determine 
whether the Petitioner met this criterion at the time of filing. 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's 
decision did not consider sufficiently the recommendation letters she submitted, and, instead, 
summarily concluded that although the Petitioner provided evidence of the "originality" of her work, 
she had not shown the "art works have remarkably impacted or influenced the field as a whole." We 
agree with the Petitioner's assertion that it is difficult to discern, based on the Director's decision, 
what specific letters were considered in reaching this determination; the decision only vaguely 
references "letters" in the analysis of this criterion, without specifically identifying any documents. 
The Director should re-examine the Petitioner's claims and all evidence submitted in support of those 
claims when evaluating this criterion on remand. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter is being remanded to the Director to re-evaluate the 
evidence submitted under the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). If, after review, the 
Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the decision should include an 
analysis of the totality of the record, evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record 
demonstrates 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. 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. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4