sustained EB-1A Case: Landscape Architecture

MATTER OF J-M-K-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 3, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a landscape architect, seeks classification of the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in business. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary met the required three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
but that she did not qualify for extraordinary ability classification in the final merits analysis. The 
Petitioner then filed a joint motion to reopen and reconsider that the Director denied. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets nine criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
.
Matter of J-M-K-1-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. USCJS, 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a landscape architect. As the record does not establish that she has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director held that the Petitioner met the judging, scholarly articles, and display criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (vii), respectively, but that she did not meet the following: 
awards, membership, and published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (ii) and (iii). Because she 
met the three initial requirements, the Director considered the evidence in the record regarding a 
final merits determination and concluded that the Petitioner had not established sustained national or 
international acclaim in the field for this classification. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets the judging, scholarly articles, and display 
criteria. For judging, the record reflects that the Petitioner participated as a jury member of the 
architecture competition in Norway and as an external critic of 
foq ______ The Netherlands. 
For scholarly articles, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner's designs were included in 
which states is "a database comprised of images that may be 
2 
.
Matter of J-M-K-1-
copied in order to produce architecture" and that the book "is a receptacle of a collective form of 
knowledge that we can provisionally call 'architecture."' The record contains excerpts from the 
Petitioner's entry into the landscape design competition in the book , which 
constitutes an article written for learned individuals with profound knowledge of that field. 1 
For display, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner displayed her work at the 
in in in and London and in in 
and Switzerland. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner meets three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in 
the context of the final merits determination below.2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim and 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. In 
this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has shown her eligibility for this classification. 
For awards, the Petitioner submits evidence of four awards she has received in international 
landscape design competitions. The record reflects that the Petitioner won first place in the 
competition in 2008 from among 13 7 teams from around the 
world. a Swedish architect and former Director of the 
states in her letter that the Petitioner's award for the 
project "was very impressive as open international competitions often attract hundreds of entries, 
including large well known practices," adding that this award "gave her a reputation as one of the 
most promising and talented young architects in urban planning in Scandinavia." 
Next, the evidence shows that the Petitioner won second place out of 1000 entries in the 
international magazine based in 
projects were published in the book 
in 2008. The record reflects that the , an 
Spain organized the competition and that the winning 
The record also 
demonstrates that the Petitioner won second place of 180 applicants in the 
_ in 2008 concerning This 
entry was published in by the in 2009. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/U SCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the criteria relating to membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), salary at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and commercial success at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Because the Petitioner meets three criteria to 
thus warrant a final merits determination, we will address the facts relating to these criteria in the final merits analysis. 
3 
.
Matter of J-M-K-1-
The Petitioner is listed as one of the winners of the 2011 Europe 40 under 40. The webpage from 
worldarchitecturenews.com states that this is an annual award given by the 
and 
The record also indicates that the Petitioner was a second phase finalist in 2010 for the 
at the open competition in 
Norway. 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not established that these awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized, that the evidence does not provide the significance and scope of the 
awards or the requirements for the competitions and the criteria utilized to select the recipient. The 
Director also noted that the record does not indicate that the results are reported by major media, 
further concluding that second place awards do not constitute national or international awards but 
amount to placement in a subjective contest or event. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional evidence regarding the background and scope of the 
competitions, the expertise of the judges, and the published material about these awards. We find 
that this evidence demonstrates that the awards discussed above are international in scope as judged 
by renowned international experts in the field. The evidence also establishes that the Petitioner has 
received international press coverage regarding these awards in professional publications such as 
the oldest journal of architecture in Denmark; and in an 
Italian architectural magazine with distribution in 60 countries. This evidence, together with the 
documentation discussed below, shows the Petitioner has received international acclaim for the 
awards she has received. 
With respect to membership, the record reflects that the Petitioner was a member of the board of 
directors for the from 2010 to 2014 and a member of the 
board of a Swedish charitable organization supporting art and 
architecture, from 2012 to 2014. The Director held that the Petitioner's membership on these boards 
did not constitute sustained acclaim because she is no longer a member. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits evidence demonstrating that membership on these boards is limited to a four-year term. 
Regarding the function and scope of these boards, the website specifies that it "organized 
lectures and viewings for its members, and initiates debates on current issues regarding architecture, 
interior architecture, landscape architecture and urban planning." In her letter, attests 
to the Petitioner being a member of the board of the from 2010 to 2014, stating that this is an 
honorary position and that she and the Petitioner "collaborated in organizing a series of urban 
seminars and lectures for the association." She further adds that the Petitioner "has been important 
for the architecture development in Sweden by her research for an Architecture Fund, which also 
received a grant from the city of She states that "[h]er research for the fund influenced 
the proposal for a new architecture policy that was commissioned by the 
This demonstrates that the Petitioner's work on the board of directors for the 
supports a finding of national acclaim in the field. 
4 
.
Matter of J-M-K-1-
the chair of the board of , states in her letter that the 
Petitioner was a member of the board from 2012 to 2014 after being nominated by the She 
states that "[t]he Board of Directors is comprised of representatives of distinguished art 
organizations" and that they meet at _ _ in 
asserts that the Petitioner was responsible for transforming the competition titled, 
into an international competition, which was held in 2015. In addition, 
Senior Urban Designer and Partner at in states in his letter that he and the 
Petitioner "collaborated on organizing a debate on Swedish and Dutch architecture that was held at 
the in in the spring of 2013" while they were on the board of directors 
for the We find that the evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner's national and 
international work on the board of directors for the and 
discussed above, further adds to her acclaim in the totality of the evidence. 
For published material, the Director held that the evidence does not demonstrate that the publications 
submitted constitute published material in professional publications or major media reflecting 
national or international acclaim. The record contains an article entitled, ' [the Petitioner]" 
published in the professional magazine which the 
evidence demonstrates is an architecture and design publication based in that focuses on 
the Nordic region. This article displays the Petitioner's photograph and states, "The 34-year-old 
Swedish landscape architect ... is one of those responsible for transforming the area into 
a town." The record also establishes that the professional publication published an article 
about the Petitioner and her views on landscape architecture entitled, 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that 1s a 
Swiss journal for landscape architecture printed in French and German. We conclude that these 
publications further establish the Petitioner's national and international acclaim in the field. 
Under judging, the record indicates that the Petitioner participated as an external critic of 
for the and as a juror for in Norway. 
While this evidence does not demonstrate a large number of judging events, the evidence in the 
record supporting the other criteria demonstrates that she has risen to the top of her field. 
With respect to scholarly articles, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner's designs were 
included in which states is "a receptacle of a collective form 
of knowledge that we can provisionally call 'architecture."' The record also contains excerpts from 
the Petitioner's entry into the landscape design competition in the book 
While the record does not contain evidence that establishes the Petitioner's acclaim from these 
publications, the article discussed above in the magazine demonstrates the extent of her 
acclaim from the competition, and the detailed summary of this entry is contained in the 
book the editor for and 
architect at , states in his letter that the Petitioner "is one of the most interesting 
European architects of her generation, and ... provides a distinctively personal approach to 
5 
.
Matter of J-M-K-1-
urbanism and landscape design." When viewed together, this evidence further establishes the 
Petitioner's acclaim in the field. 
For display, the Director held that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the exhibitions where she 
presented are of distinction and that her work was of such significance to establish sustained national 
or international acclaim. The evidence indicates that the Petitioner exhibited her work at the 
m m by m 
and for the 
Switzerland. 
for the 
"contributed to our show 
( among them the 
m 
in the record establishes that the 
and~ m and 
states that he invited the Petitioner to contribute to the show 
of 2012. He also asserts that the Petitioner 
that was presented in several European cultural venues 
the and the 
and that was published as a set of books in 2015." The evidence 
hosted one of 
these exhibitions in which the Petitioner presented her works in - The record contains a 
webpage overview of the which states that it "was founded in 1895 and it is now 
one of the most famous and prestigious cultural organizations in the world" and indicates that "[t]he 
has also been recognized as the best in the world." Together, this evidence 
demonstrates that the display of the Petitioner's work has reached international venues, further 
establishing her international acclaim in the field. 
Under salary, the record reflects that the Petitioner received significant compensation for the awards 
discussed above.3 The record indicates that the Petitioner received payment in the amount of 1,500,000 
Norwegian Krones, which the record shows is equivalent to $193,337, for reaching the second phase of 
the at the competition for her original 
design of a museum in Norway. The record also establishes that the Petitioner was awarded 
$49,582 (40,000 Euros) for her first place award in the competition, 
which further supports her claim of having risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
When considered in the aggregate with the evidence discussed above, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that her achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). We conclude that the 
record supports a finding that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of her field of 
endeavor with sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
3 The record contains a brief email from what appears to be stating "2. praemie DKK 
300.000," which the Petitioner states refers to the amount she was awarded in the __ The record 
shows this is equivalent to $50,094. While we will not consider this compensation because the email has not been 
properly translated under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), we find that the compensation for the other awards demonstrates 
significantly high compensation on this issue in the totality of the circumstances. 
6 
Matter of J-M-K-1-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that her 
achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. She has also demonstrated 
that she intends to continue working in her area of expertise and that her admission will benefit 
prospectively the United States. She therefore qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of J-M-K-1-, ID# 1405051 (AAO Aug. 3, 2018)