dismissed O-1B Case: Art

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLICCOPY 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. DePllrtmeot of Homelaod 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 Inmtigration 
SerVices' 
Date: FEB 0 2 2011 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The . 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
,/ 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, an art gallery, filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary, ail artist, 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Ast (the, Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the, petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
extraordinary ability in the arts as defmed in the statute and regulations. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to submit evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), or at least 
three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal The director declined to treat the appeal-as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submitted evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2), (5) and (6). Counsel 
" \ 
contends that the director applied a standard that was overly narrow and restrictive in reviewing the submitted 
evidence. Counsel submits a brief, but no additional evidence, in support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) ofth~ Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defmes, in pertinent part: 
) 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fme arts, visual , 
arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Extraordinary ability in ,the field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person descrihed as prominent is renowned, leading, 
or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. To qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as being prominent in his 
or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: \ 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national 
or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award, an 
Emmy, a Grarnmy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
f 
--
(B) At least three of the fQllowing forms of documentation: 
(C) 
(1) 
,/ 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions ,or events which have a distinguished 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, 
publications, contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
about the, individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other . , , 
publications; 
(3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or' 
critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, 
box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
publications; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in_ 
the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials' must be in a form 
which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence; or 
If the criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iv) of this sect,ion do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary'S occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establishr~e beneficiary'S eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
( 
,,-
Page 4 
(B) Affidavits written by present or fonner employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual tennsand set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such infonnation. 
The decision of u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
-J 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily esta~!ish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg 41818, 41820 (August 15, 
1994). 
} 
In detennining the beneficiary'S eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
725317 (9th Cir. March, 4; 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out often alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary'S eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cj 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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)." Id. at 1122 (Citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also 
explained the "fmal merits detennination" as the corollary to this procedure: , 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, US CIS detennines 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 h,ave 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). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
/ 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a fmal merits detennination. The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two~part approach to be appropriate 
for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, 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), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting 
that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo ba~is). ' 
·; .- \ 
-' 
Page 5 
II. Discussion 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner claims that the evidence submitted in support of the petition satisfies three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B) and therefore is sufficient to establish that the beneficiary is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts.' In denying the petition, the director ~etermined that the submitted evidence 
meets none of the applicable evidentiary criteria. After careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the 
petitioner has failed to overcome the grounds for denial. 
\ 
If the' petitioner establishes through the s~bmission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has been the recipient. of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular 
field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), th~m it will meet its burden of proof with respect, to the 
beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Granimy, or 
a Director's Guild award as examples of qualifying significant awards or prizes. The petitioner does not claim 
that the beneficiary has received or been nominated for a signi~cant national or international award or prize in the 
fine arts. 
Accordingly, the petiti~ner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B).The petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets the following criteria:] 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
To qualify as under this criterion, the publication should have significant national or international distribu~ion. An 
alien would not eam recognition for achievements at the national or international level from a local publication. 
Some newspapers, such as the ~ew York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major 
media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers? 
The petitioner submitted the following evidence pertaining to this criterion: 
• An interview with the beneficiary published in the July 1, 1994 edition of AI-Baath 
newspaper (Syria), regarding The Armenian Plastic Arts Exhibition in Aleppo. 
• '-The October 2005 issue of Medico Oftalmologo, a publication of the Argentine Counsel of 
Ophthalmology, which featured the beneficiary's artwork on the cover and a brief biography 
of the beneficiary. 
] The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this \ 
decision. Counsel raises no objection to the director's finding that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 
214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(1), (3), and (4) have not been satisfied. 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For, 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside ~fthat county. 
Page 6 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
An article printed in a 2005 edition of Hamaynatpatker, a California-based magazine 
published in the Armenian language. 
An interview with the beneficiary published in the July 2007 issue of 
monthly Armenian-American magazine. 
a ' j 
A brief interview with the beneficiary published. in the September 3, 1998 edition of the 
Armenian publication Hciyots Ashkar. 
A one-pru:agraph biography of the beneficiary published in Schluchtern city newspaper, in 
Germany in March 1998. 
An article about the beneficiary published in the January 30, 2002 edition of Sardarabad, a 
'weekly Armenian-Argentinean newspaper. 
An article about the beneficiary published in the OCtober 5, 2005 edition of Sardarabad 
An editorial written by the beneficiary, published in an unidentified issue of Generacion3; a 
free magazine published by the League of Young People, an Armenian youth organization 
in Argentina. \ 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that any of these publications are "major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines," or other major publicati~ns, noting that the petitioner submitted no 
corroborative evidence to demonstrate the publications' national coverage, including the level of circulation and 
the circulation population. The director further observed that several of the articles only briefly mention the 
\ ~ 
beneficiary and his work. Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's determination. 
The interview with the beneficiary in Al Baath newspaper discusses "The Armenian Plastic Arts Exhibition" 
which took place in Aleppo, Syria on June 22, 1994 at the invitation of the Syrian Youth of Aleppo. The 
beneficiary was interviewed about the event and about the history of art in Armenia. While the article confirms 
that the beneficiary participated in the exhibition, the article is not specifically about the beneficiary, nor does it 
recognize his achievements in the field of art. 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that Al Baath neWSpaper is a "major newspaper" in Syria. The petitioner 
describes the publication simply as a "Syrian newspaper covering general news." Counsel emphasizes that the 
newspaper has a "worldwide circulation via the World Wide Web," but has not provided evidence that the 1994 
interview with the beneficiary was published on the newspaper's web site. Furthermore, the fact that a digital 
copy of an article is available on a website is insufficient to establish that the published article meets this criterion. 
The burden is on the petitioner to submit evidence (such as internet readership statistics) showing that the website 
qualifies as a "major" newspaper, trade journal or publication. A local or regional newspaper is not considered a 
"major" newspaper simply because it has a website. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. "Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary provided ~over art for an issue of Medico Oftalmologo. 
This medical journal published a brief "a~out the cover illustration" biography of the beneficiary which mentions 
several prizes the beneficiary received for his art in Argentina. Counsel states that "the circulationldistributionin 
printed format is for the entire country of Argentina, however, given that the publication is also available in an 
., 
Page 7 
online format, the actual reach of the publication is worldwide." Counsel indicates that the publication has a 
repu~tion as "a very distinguished publication for medica:! professionals." 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the publication of the beneficiary's cover illustration and 
accompanying brief biography in an ophthalmological medical journal is evidence of national recognition for his 
achievements in the arts. First, while the journal may have a national circulation in Argentina, the petitioner has 
not established that it enjoys any readership outside of the medical community. The petitioner may submit 
evidence in the form of articles from trade journals; however, it is reasonable to expect such journal articles to be 
in the beneficiary's field. Further, the biography accompanying the illustration is so brief it barely rises to the 
level of an article "about the beneficiary." Any artist featured on the cover of a journal or magazine will receive 
similar credit within the magazine's pages. However, the articles in the publication are medical articles in the 
ophthalmological field. The fact that the brief biography accompanying the cover illustration provides a list of 
awards does not establish that these achievements are nationally recognized in his field, nor does it grant the 
beneficiary "national recognition" for awards which might be local or regional in nature. 
The petitioner submitted an article that appeared in Hamaynapatker, which is described by counsel as both "a 
newspaper" and as "an art magazine of general circulation published in Glendale, ~A, aimed at the AnTIenian-
I 
American artist." Counsel notes that the article "describes the works of [the beneficiary], as well as the numerous 
cities across the world- that have exhibited his work, including Moscow, Aleppo, Vienna, Paris, Copenhagen, 
Hamburg, and so on, and introduces him to the readers of the publication." 
The article in;question was written by an individual who learned of the beneficiary's art through a co-worker who 
is personally acquainted with the beneficiary. The article was also written as an introduction of the beneficiary to 
the Armenian-American arts community, thereby suggesting that he lacks an established reputation with the 
magazine's target audience~ The article provides some biographical information regarding the beneficiary and 
identifies cities where his work has been exhibited. The article mentions the beneficiary's move from Armenia to 
Buenos Aires, where his "art was shown in many exhibitions and competitions where he won a lot of prizes" and 
where "the local media, news and journals talk about his works periodically." The article also briefly mentions 
the beneficiary's artistic style, and the author expresses his or her hope that the beneficiary's art will be exhibited 
in the United States. The article does not discuss the beneficiary's achievements with any specificity, such as 
identitying the venues where his work has been exhibited, the competitions he has won, or the news and media 
outlets that have critiqued his work. Vague references to exhibits, awards and favorable reviews cannot be 
deemed significant recognition for achievements, particularly here, where the record as a whole contains 
relatively little evidence with respect to the beneficiary's past exhibitions, evidence of ~nly three to four of his 
awards, and a fairly small body of published evidence about the beneficiary's work. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that the magazine Hamaynapatker, can be considered "a major 
newspaper, trade journal or magazine," as required by the regulations. Although the director advised that 
circulation figures and similar statistics would be required to establish whether the submitted articles are in "major 
publications," the petitioner offers no further evidence on appeal. Absent such evidence, the AAO cannot 
conclude that a magazine P4blished in the United States in the Armenian language and intended to be marketed to 
Armenian-American artists, is widely circulated compared to major, mainstream art publications. For the 
foregoing reasons, this evidence does not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
.. 
Page 8 
Counsel indicates that the petitioner has submitted two articles from Ashkharhi Shoorj, which counsel describes 
as "a monthly publication that reaches out to the Armenian-American comniunity," and "is distributed throughout 
the Greater Los Angeles area, as well as in Armenia." Upon review of the initial evidence, the petitioner 
submitted one article ,that appeared on pages 16 and 17 of the July 2007 issue (#36) of this magazine. Part ofthe 
English translation of the same article was submitted as Exhibit F and part of the translation was submitted as 
Exhibit G. Accordin~ to the English translation, the article is titled "What was this Art that stocked to us? Quick 
interview with The article introduces the beneficiary as an artist,who is well-known in 
Armenia and who has been living in Buenos Aires for ten years. The article mentions that the beneficiary has had , 
exhibitions in Russia, Germany, Syria, Spain and Los 'Angeles and has paintings in the collections of "very 
serious New York and Canada Art c~llectors." The interviewer asked the beneficiary about his workshop in 
Yerevan, his upcoming visit to America, his paintings, his feelings about Argentine tango and literature, and his 
views of art in general. As with the other articles, the petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the 
publication Ashkharhi Shoorj could be considered a "major newspaper, trade journal or magazine,"or that 
recognition within this magazine amounts to national or international recognition for achievements. 
In response to a request for evidence ("RFE") issued on July 17, 2008, counsel indicated that the petitioner was 
resubmitting the, same "two articles" from Ashkharhi Shoorj as Exhibits F, G, H and I. Specifically, counsel 
stated: 
The first of these articles is an interview with world-renowned 
artist from Argentina who is an internationally recognized and respected 
Exhibit I. In this interview he commends the works of [the beneficiary] and gives credit to the 
level of his skill. See Exhibit F. Simply put, this would be the equivalent to Oscar Wilde or 
Mark Twain giving praise to a young Van Gogh or Monet. The second of these articles is an 
interview with [the beneficiary] in which he is detailing his experiences in'Armenia as an artist, 
specifically his views on where his art has come from and where he would like for it to go. See 
Exhibit G. 
The evidence submitted is identical to that submitted at the time of filing and includes a single Armenian­
language source article from Ashkharhi Shoorj magazine. Specifically, Exhibit F consists of: the second page of 
the two-page English translation of an interview with the beneficiary, bearing the translator's certification as to its 
accuracy; an un-translated copy of the cover of an Armenian-language magazine dated July 2007, which is 
presumed to be Ashkharhi Shoorj; an un-translated table of contents page from Ashkharhi Shoorj magazine which 
1". I \ 
identifies the U.S. address and names of the magazine's publishers and editors in English; and an. interview that 
appears on pages 16 and 17 of the magazine and includes a picture of on~ of the beneficiary's paintings. Exhibit 
G includes the first page of the English translation of the interview with the beneficiary that appeared in 
Ashkharhi Shoorj, in July 2007, which ends abruptly mid-interview and does not bear a certification from the 
translator; a certified English translation of a brief interview with the beneficiary' which has the following 
identifYing information: "'Hayots Ashkar,'" September 3
rd 
1998 page #6"; and the Armenian source document that 
accompanies this translation, which appears to be a newspaper. The petitioner has not provided any 
accompanying explanation for the "Hayots Ashkar" article and thus the AAO cannot conclude that this 
publication is a "major newspaper." 
j 
Page 9 ' 
Exhibits H and I of the RFE response included biographical infonnation regarding from the 
website The Modern Word. According to this evidence, _ died in 1986. Therefore, counsel's claim 
that the submitted July 2007 issue of Ashkharhi Shoorj included an interview is not persuasive. 
A review of the text of the article reveals that. the beneficiary discussed work ill response to an 
interview question regarding the arts in Argentin~. If there was an interview with Argentinean ••••• 
_ about the beneficiary. in an, issue Ashkhari Shoorj prior to _ death, the petitiom~r has not 
provided it for review. As discussed above, the petitioner has not e'stablished that the submitted interview with 
the beneficiary from this magazine meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a very short biography of the beneficiary that appeared in the ••••••• 
_a Gennan publication, in March 1998. The article indicates that the beneficiary was born in 1960 and 
has 20 years of experience during which "there were many meetings with painters and art experts in various 
trends and influences." 'Counsel describes the newspaper as "a Gennan newspaper printed in the city of 
Schulchtern," with "general circulation covering all aspects of news and media." The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence in the fonn of circulation statistics to establish that this article was published in a "major newspaper." 
The article itself appears among what appears to be a group of brief artist biographies and no context is provided., 
It is possible that the article was 'published as part of a group exhibition in which the beneficiary'S ~ork appeared. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner has not established' how this article establishes the beneficiary'S national or 
international'recognition for achievements in the arts. 
The petitioner submitted two articles about the beneficiary published in Sardarabad, which according to th~ 
English translations submitted is a weekly Annenian newspap~r of the Tekeyan Cultural Association in 
Argentina. Counsel describes the newspaper as "a nationally-recognized newspaper in both Argentin~ and 
Annenia, with a long history of publication spanning over thirty years," but, despite the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner failed to submit any circulation statistics for this publication to establish that it is a "major 
newspaper." Counsel's unsupported assertion that the newspaper is "natiqnally-recognized" is insufficient to 
establish that this evidence satisfies the plain language of this regulatory requirement, which requires the 
petitioner to submit aiticles about the beneficiary published in "major newspapers.i, Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter oj Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BrA 1988); Matter oj Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter oj Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, the petitioner submi1!ed an article that was published in Generacion3, which cOlillsel describes as a 
Spanish-language newspaper distributed in print throughout North and South America. The petitioner indicates 
that the magazine is"devoted to the League of Youth," which counsel describes as "an organization that is 
devoted to the Annenian youth in Argentina." The article is an editorial essay written by the beneficiary about 
the Soviet regime and its influence on the arts in Annenia. The evidence indicates that Generacion3 is a free 
magazine distributed primarily at various retail shops located in Buenos Aires, with six distribution sites in the 
rest of Argentina, and single distributors in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico, Venezuela, the United States, and 
f ' 
( Spain. Again, despite the director's request, the record contains no evidence of the magazine's circulation 
statistics or readership. Further,the petitioner has not explained how the editorial written by the beneficiary rises 
to the level of "national or international recognition for achievements." 
\ 
.. 
Page 10 
On appeal, counsel objects to the director's conclus}on that the petitioner's evidence fails to satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2), emphasizing that "the Petitioner submitted materials from four (4) countries, 
with details on their dates of publication, circulation and internet accessibility." Counsel's also argues that all of 
the publications "have a worldwide reach" because a "website allows for any given person to access the material 
at any given time via the Internet." Counsel notes that "all of the published material that relates to [the 
beneficiary] has the ability to be read across the world, thereby'making him an internationally-recognized artist." 
As discussed, the petitioner has not, in fact provided evidence of the print circulation and internet readership of 
any of the publications in which the articles appeared. The record contains no evidence (such as objective 
circulation information or internet readership statistics from an independent source) showing the distribution or 
readership of any of these publications relative to other print or online media to demonstrate that these 
publications can be considered "major" newspapers or magazines. 
The director also noted that the petitioner's submissions did not include critical reviews from art critics or similar 
published evidence. Counsel replies to this finding with an accusation of "illiteracy" on the part of the Service 
Center, noting that "the interview conducted in Argentina is writing generated by one of the 
most well-known and respected Spanish Language writers in the world." As discussed above, the evidence the 
petitioner submitted indicates that _ died in 1986 at the ag~ of 87. The alleged interview with" 
_ took place- in 2007. As noted above, the petitioner, either carelessly or deliberately, appears to have 
presented a portion of an interview with the beneficiary, in which the beneficiary discussed _ work, as 
an interview with _ about the beneficiary's work. A careful review of the submitted evidence reflects 
that the petitioner has submitted no published interview with 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO, upholds the director's finding that none of the submitted evidence 
meets the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the ali'en is engaged Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence in the form of awards and testimonial letters in support of this criterion. 
submits a certificate indicating that the beneficiary was awarded lSI p'rize at the Exhibition of 
of 2005 in Buenos Aires. According to the English translation submitted, the exhibition 
took place at "EdeA Gallery." The certificate indicates that the event was "sponsored by the Secretary of 
Culture of Autonomous Government of the City of Buenos Aires." With respect to the significance of this 
award, counsel stated: 
It should be noted that Buenos Aires is the capital and largest city of Argentina. Buenos 
Aires constitutes the third largest urban area in Latin America with l3 million inhabitants. 
See Exhibit Q. Given that the capital city of Argentina is sponsoring this event, this 
exhibition is a nationally-recognized exhibition. Also, given that Buenos Aires is the largest 
urban area in Latin America, which is comprised of several nations throughout North and 
/ 
.. 
'. 
Page II 
South America, as well as being one of the leading cities in culture, which includes many 
forms of art, this award is internationally recognized. 
In support of these claims, the petitioner submitted an article about Buenos Aires from Wikipedia. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not eStablished the significance of this awarc;i. Although the Buenos Aires 
Secretary of Culture sponsored this exhibition, it has not been established that every award at any art 
exhibition sponsored by the city's Secretary of Culture represents "significant recognition." USCIS is aware 
that Buenos Aires is a major city thC!.t is well-known throughout the world. However, in order to demonstrate 
that this award meets the criterion at 8 G.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5), the petitioner must establish the 
significance of the individual prize the beneficiary r:eceived at the EdeA Gallery exhibition in 2005. Such 
evidence could include evidence from the sponsor or organizer regarding the history and scope of the event 
itself, information from 'its organizers regarding the number of entries in the beneficiary'S format in the year 
he won, evidence of any publicity or monetary award the received as a result of winning first prize, or other 
evidence that establis~es that the winner of this event receives "significant recognition," beyond a paper 
certificate. If the results of the event were not publicized beyond the exhibition's sponsor, host gallery, and 
participants, the AAO cannot find that this award meets the plain language of the regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that, in 2002, the beneficiary received a first place award in the "small size" . 
painting format from Art Exhibition. Counsel indicated that this Buenos 
Aires gallery created an award especially for the beneficiary by "displaying his work as a 'on~ man show,' an 
\ 
event that is among the most coveted .and prestigious in art." Counsel stated that the first place award is "an 
. internationally known and recognized award of merit for exceptional ability and skill in the field of art." This 
argument was also based on the fact that Buenos Aires is a major world city and the fact that the award was 
issued in that city. ' . 
~u~ award, th~ petitioner. h~~ pro~ided. ~o evidence with respe.ct to. the repu~ation of t~e 
_ ItS annual Fme Art ExhIbItIOn, or the CIrcumstances under whIch the benefiCIary won hIS 
award in 2002. The petitioner has not established that winning a first place award certificate at this event 
amounts to "significant recognition." 
The petitioner also submitted a short newspaper article with the title "New award for the 
••••• The date of publication and the name of the newspaper have not been provided, 
translation of the article, although certified by the translator, is not clearly written. It appears that the _ 
_ held a competition in the "small art" format in which 24 "plastic artists" participated. The 
beneficiary won the competition and was awarded with an individual exhibition commencing in September 
1996. The petitioner submitted a Wikipedia arti'cie titled "Solo show (art exhibition)" to establish the 
significance of the award. Counsel's assertion that the gallery created this award especially for the 
beneficiary is not supported by the evidence. Rather it appears that the beneficiary entered his work into a 
competition at a gallery of unknown reputation, for which the prize was· a solo exhibition at the gallery: The 
beneficiary received press coverage in the form of a photograph and an article three sentences in length in an 
unidentified newspaper of unknown circulation: Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that this solo 
exhibition constituted "significant recognition" for the beneficiary'S achievements. 
, . 
Page 12 
dated July 25, 2008 from 
states: 
Since being elected to membership in the in April 2007, ~ 
beneficiary's] artwork was selected for the in June 2007 and the_ 
'12008. [The ben~ed with an_A~ard of Merit at 
for his painting __. . 
OJ""'''''''''''' also submitted the program from the held at 
the in Glendale, California. The program indicates that four of the benefiCiary'~ 
works were selected for the exhibition and confirms his rece' of the Award of Merit. (The petitioner also 
provided additional information regarding from the organization's web site. 
The society is described as "th~ oldest established organization of professional artists in the _ 
_ with a membership of over 100 artists. The web site states the following with respect to the annual 
exhibition: 
For the last seventy-five years the Soci~ty has continued the tradition of an annual Juried 
exhibition in one venue or another.' Reviewing news clippings reveals that the Society has 
managed to maintain, throughout its history, public notice and credit for consistent high 
degree of quality, just to quote a few headlines .... 
The website discusses press coverage the annual art exhibition received between 1925 and 1995 in 
publications such as The Los Angeles Times and the Pasadena Star News. The petitioner has not, however, 
submitted any press coverage for the of the III 
which the beneficiary'S work appeared. It is unclear whether the beneficiary'S award earned him any 
recognition outsidepfthe confines of the membership of the 
Counsel emphasized that the is located "in the San Gabriel Valley, just outside of 
Metropolitan Los Angeles, CA, clearly in an internationally recognized city, thereby making the society itself 
an internationally recognized association among artists." Counsel's, assertion that the 
••• and its annual art exhibition are internationally-recognized, or even nationally recognized, based on 
the proximity of the San Gabriel Vallex to Los Angeles is not persuasive. The petitioner has not established 
that an Award of Merit from the is "significant recogriition" in the beneficiary'S 
field. 
The petitioner has also submitted a total of three testimonial letters in support of the petition. The first is from 
. North Hollywood, California. states: 
Ifwe were to learn about [the beneficiary] we must look to his art. 
Being an experienced art professional he assimilated many of modem techniques into his own 
personal style - realistic and philosophical. 
Page 13 
The monumental paintings in "Holy Family" Catholic Church have established the building 
as the foremost and desired place in Glendale. I have looked at these amazing paintings and I 
am very impressed by [the beneficiary's] creativity. I am willing to say that it's a 'big 
responsibility taken by the artist and he did an amazingly beautiful and professional work. 
In addition to these paintings I saw the photos of various paintings he did in "St. Narek's" in 
. Buenos Ayres [sic] and in "St. Grigor" in San Paulo. He has been dedicated to the religious 
art for a long time. His religious paintings are in all over Argentina, Brazil and the US, which 
tells that [the beneficiary] is an international artist. He is a master. 
Besides the religious art, [the beneficiary] has participated in various group, as well as solo 
exhibitions. He has been awarded for his unique art in Argentina and the U.S. 
He is going to have solo exhibitions in Glendale Carmel and in Buenos Ayres. 
This prolific and multi-faceted. artist's work is honest and direct revelation of the artist's' 
character. His art is the reflection of his nature and life. We can see him through his 
paintings, and feel the vibration in his soul. In some ways his paintings remind me of those 
by 
~tioner submitted a letter from 
_ in Carmel, California. 
and 
[The beneficiary] is one of the most respected and appreciated artists of our Carmel galleries. 
We have been collaborating with him almost five years now and his works are part of our 
permanent gallery collection. His style is expressive, surrealistic and his works are strong in 
character arid his thorough grasp of the subject matter in every painting is deeply thought 
providing and excellent in performance. [The beneficiary] is a modest man, with very deep 
theoretical and practical knowledge of art and art history of the world, and it is an honor to 
carry his works in our two locations in Carmel by the Sea. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter 
in Glendale, California. states In my . Our 
clients are growing interest in his world of art. [The beneficiary'~]paintings sell for $3,500 to $5,000. I am 
certain that our business relations will become stronger as he is becoming more recognized. He has been very 
successful in his,last few exhibitions and I am proud to work with such a talented artist." 
The director determined that the testimonial letters attest to the beneficiary'S talent and technique, rather than 
his achievements in the field, and as such, do not constitute "significant recognition of the beneficiary's 
achievements in the field of arts." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(B) provides that affidavits written by present or former employers 
or recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordinary ability . . . shall specifically describe the 
> • 
. Page 14 
alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
Upon review of the letters, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievementsJrom organizations, critics, 
government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field. 
praises the beneficiary'S artistic talents; but his testimony fails to describe the beneficiary'S 
recognition and achievements in factual terms. 
-describes the beneficiary's artistic style, confirms that his work is exhibited in her galleries, 
and indicates that he is "one of the most respected and appreciated artists of our Carmel galleries." She does 
not attest to the beneficiary'S lev~l of recognition beyond the confines of her own galleries, nor does she 
explain in factual terms the beneficiary'S achievements in the field of fine arts. Further, while the petitioner 
submitted some information regarding one the record contains no explanation or 
evidence or her specific credentials as a recognized expert. 
Finally, is clearly impressed with the beneficiary'S technique, character, and professionalism, 
and is particularly interested in the beneficiary'S religious art and cathedral painting. However, he refers only 
vaguely to the beneficiary's exhibitions and awards and fails to describe the' beneficiary'S recognition and 
-achievements in factUal terms. He states that he has seen the beneficiary'S cathedral paintings in Glendale and 
has seen photographs of the beneficiary'S other church paintings. It is unclear in what manner 
acquired any other information regarding the beneficiary's work and achievements. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795-796; see' also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
- important considerations. Even when written by independent experts,-letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an artist 
- whose achievements have received "significant recognition." I _ 
Therefore, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5) has not been met. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or 
other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by 
contracts or other reliable evidence 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary sold his artwork for approximately $107,000 in 2007 and therefore 
qualifies under this criterion. The petitioner has submitted Occupatiomil Employment and Wages data for fme 
artists as of May 2007 from the website of the u.s. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 
, , 
Page 15 
According to the national BLS data, the 90th percentile annual wage for fine artists in 2007 was $83,820. If the 
petitioner establishes through the submission of corroborating evidence that the beneficiary actually earned 
significantly more than the top 10 percent of fine artists in the United States, then this criterion would be met. 
The petitioner has attempted to document the beneficiary's annual earnings through submissioI). of letters, 
invoices, contracts and check payments for his work. Specifically, the petitioner submitted: 
• An undated letter from which indicates. that the 
beneficiary's work has been part of' collection for two years and that "the recent sales 
results are for the size 24x30 is 5,000 (US$)." . 
• An undated letter from the petitioner's gallery indicating that the beneficiary's art was 
exhibited "in the month of June." The letter indicates that four paintings were sold for a 
totalof$13,500. 
• An invoice dated May 15, 2007 from in Burbank. The invoice 
indicates that 7 of the beneficiary's paintings were sold to the beneficiary for a total price of 
$19,600. 
• An undated letter from art gallery. The letter 
indicates that three paintings were sold at a price of $3,000 each. I 
• A letter dated July 23,2007 from confirming that 
he/she paid a total of$II,500 for 
• A check in the amount of $5,000 issued to the beneficiary on July 23, 2007 as "partial 
payment for sanctuary restoration," with evidence that the beneficiary's total fee for the 
project will be $25,000. . . 
• A letter dated February 19, 2007 from 
located in Marseille, France indicating that the prices of the beneficiary's: "Fairies" series 
paintings (in Euros) are: 4,500; {500; 3,000, 3,000 and 2,600. 
• A letter dated April 20, 2006 from indicating that 
four of the beneficiary's paintings were exhibited as an interior decoration at a restaurant. 
Each of the paintings was listed at a price of 6,000 euro. 
• A contract indicating that the beneficiary was paid $15,000 for various paintings in the 
Armenian Catholic Cathedral o.ver a fifteen-month 2000. 
• An undated letter from 
the be!leficiary's works sell for $3,500 to $5,000. 
Upon review, the. AAO notes that the evidence does not fully support counsel's claims that the beneficiary 
enjoyed total earnings of $107,000 in 2007.' Several of the submitted letters are undated and therefore do not 
confirm sales in 2007, while other letters list prices for paintings without providing clear confirmation that those 
paintings were in fact sold. The petitioner has not provided reliable evidence such as the beneficiary's tax return 
reflecting his total eainings in 2007, copies of checks received as a result of the sales, or even a definitive list of 
works sold in 2007. The petitioner did not explain on which figures its calculation was based, and it is therefore 
unclear exactly which figures the petitioner used to derive the $107,000 total for the year. The AAO cannot 
determine based on the evidence submitted what wages the beneficiary received in 2007, nor can we conclude 
that his salary met or exceeded the 90th percentile salary provided by the BLS, such that it can be considered a 
"high salary" in the beneficiary's field. 
· . 
) 
Page 16 
While the letters as a whole Suggest that the beneficiary's works are priced at approximately $3,000 to $5,000 
depending on the size of the painting, the petitioner has, not ,offered any evidence as to what constitutes a "high 
salary" for a fme artist in terms of pricing for individual oil pa,intings of similar size. 
Although we concur with the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet 
this criterion, we disagree with the director's fmding that "th~ record did not cOl;ttain evidence such as a statistical 
comparison of salaries in the field of endeavor." As discussed above, the BLS data was acceptable for the 
purposes of evidencing the range of salaries in ¢e beneficiary's field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence IS first counted and then considered in the context of 
a final merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner established eligibility under none of the 
six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B), of which at least three must be metto establish eligibility. 
Notwithstanding the above, a fmal merits determination cons~ders all of the evidence in the context of whether or 
not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has a high level of achievement in the arts evidenced 
by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that he is 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts, purs~ant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the 
bepeficiary is recognized as being prominent in his field, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). See Kazarian, 
2010 WL 725317 at *3. / 
In this case, we concur with the director's fmding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
prominent to the extent that he could be considered renown.ed, leading or well-known in the field of fme arts. 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). Although the petitioner's 
evidence shows that the beneficiary has enjoyed a degree of recognition over the years which may exceed that of 
some working artists, the evidence in the aggregate does not establish that the beneficiary is recognized as a 
leading or well-known artist in tpe field as a whole. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R.i § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(2), the petitioner failed to 
establish that critical reviews or other published material by or about the beneficiary were published in "major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. ", None of the submitted articles were in the form of 
"critical reviews," and none of the articles were published i~ "major" publications. Many of the publications in 
which articles have appeared are marketed primarily toward Armenian immigrants residing in Argentina and the 
United States. The petitioner has not de~onstrated that su~h publications maintain the level of readership needed 
to be considered "major media" capable of conveying national or international recognition for the beneficiary'S 
achievements. While it is true that the beneficiary appears ih articles published in Gemiany, the United States, 
Argentina and Syria, not all of these were significant articles: "about the beneficiary" and his achievements as an 
artist, and thus the petitioner's claim that the articles demonstrate that the beneficiary is "internationally 
recognized" is not supported by the evidence. It is reasonable to expect an artist who is recognized as leading or 
well-known in the field to have gained some exposure in major art'publications or major publications of general 
circulation. -~ 
-, t I , •• 
Page 17 
The evidence submitted with respect to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5) demonstrates that the beneficiary has 
won a total of four awards for his artwork from organizati~ms whose reach and reputation appears to be local 
or regional in scope. Based on the evidence submitted, it ~oes not appear that the awards themselves earned 
the benefi"ciary any sjgnificant publi9ity and it is unclear ,:"hether the award-winners of the exhibitions were 
publicized at all. As such, the petitioner dId not establish that the awards themselves conveyed "significant 
recognition" for achiev"emehts capable of demonstrating the b~neficiary's prominence or distinction in the 
field of fine arts. Further, while the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of his references, the 
testimonial evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the beneficiary's reputation as a leading or well­
known artist. 
Finally, with respect to the evidence submitted to satisfy the criterion at 8C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(6), the 
petitioner's claims that the beneficiary has earned a high salary or other sig!llficant remuneration in relation to 
others in his field simply failed on an evidentiary basis. The petitioner relied on the beneficiary's claimed 
annual earnings in 2007, but did not clearly or sufficientl~ document such earnings. While the beneficiary's 
earnings appear to be above average for a fine artist, the p~titioner has not met its burden to establish that his 
earnings elevate him to the level of those artists who are ~ecognized as renowned, leading or well-known in 
the field. 
Therefore, the conclusion we reach by considering each evidentiary criterion separately is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in th~ aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the 
,beneficiary as a painter who has achieved a level of dis~inction to the. extent that he. can be deemed to be 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of fine arts. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). Based on the evidence , I 
submitted, it can be concluded that the beneficiary has bee~ a successful working artist since the late 1990s who 
has earned the respect of peers, gallery owners and some 'smaller publications during the course of his career. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extrao'rdinary ability,. however, must clearly demonstrate that 
the alien is recognized as being prominent, leading, renowned or well-known in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary's achievements and level of recognition rise to'this level. 
ill. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
is recognized as renowned, leading or well-known in his field, or that his achievements are marked by a degree 
of recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountyred. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above. stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative 
basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden lof proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. ~ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.