sustained EB-1A

sustained EB-1A Case: Contemporary Art

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Contemporary Art

Decision Summary

The appeal was sustained because the director's denial was overturned. The AAO, applying the two-part analysis from the Kazarian decision, found that the petitioner, a contemporary artist, successfully submitted evidence meeting at least three of the required regulatory criteria.

Criteria Discussed

Published Material About The Alien Original Artistic Contributions Of Major Significance Display Of Work At Artistic Exhibitions Or Showcases

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invWon ofpenonal prtvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE:APR 1 2 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
Thank you, 
'\\l~~~ 
? Perry Rhew \j 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on June 30, 2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
-Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCrS) 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. Id. 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; 
(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; 
Page 4 
(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. USCIS, 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.! 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." Id. 
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 [ir] field of endeavor," 
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 )(1 )(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), ajJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
1 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.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
-Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 13, 2010, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a contemporary artist. Upon review of the petitioner's supplemental 
brief and the documentation of record, the AAO finds that the petitioner's evidence meets the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (vii). Accordingly, the petitioner 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the 
minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opmlOn, the AAO must next conduct a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner 
has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has 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. § I 153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-1120. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his achievements 
as an artist. The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim as an artist and that his achievements have been recognized in 
his field of expertise. Moreover, the submitted documentation shows that the petitioner is 
among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, 
the petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under at least three of the ten categories of 
evidence and established 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" and "sustained national or 
international acclaim." His achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. The 
petitioner has established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United 
States. The petitioner has established that his entry into the United States will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for 
the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act. 
-Page 6 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 US.c. § 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The petition is approved. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.