dismissed O-1B Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16914349 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 11, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an art museum, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an associate curator of1 .... _____ _, 
art, as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in the arts. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in the 
arts, either a significant national or international award or at least three of six possible forms of 
documentation . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the field of arts." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner must submit evidence either of "significant 
national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a 
Director's Guild Award," or of at least three of six listed categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the listed criteria do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we wi11 determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) , (iv). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The petitioning an art museum seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the role of assistant curator for its 
I I art collection for a period of three years . Accordin to his curriculum vitae, the 
Beneficiary received his Doctor of Fine Arts at the State University in 2016. 
At the time 9f filing the instant petition in !Jllv 2020 the Beneficiary was employed in _____ -
as curator at l 'T , ,I and as a professor of visual arts 
at I I The record also indicates that the Beneficiary serveq as a resident curator at 
I I School of Art in 2016, and at the Institute of Contemporary Arts! .,, T Jin 2020. The 
Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary is a curator of extraordinary ability in the field ofl I 
art. 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has been nominated for or 
received a significant national or international award or prize, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J)-(6) . In denying the petition, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the alternative regulatory criteria, lead, starring, or 
critical role for distinguished organizations under 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) . We do not agree 
with the Director's finding relating to that criterion, discussed later. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets four additional criteria, relating to lead 
or starring participant in distinguished productions or events under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J), 
national or international recognition for achievements evidenced by published materials under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2); major commercial or critically acclaimed success under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)( 4); and, significant recognition for achievements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). Alternately, the Petitioner asserts for the first time on appeal that "[s]hould 
more regulatory certainty be needed to reach the level for granting the extraordinary ability 
nonimmigrant approval sought, applying the 'comparable evidence' category ... makes [the 
Beneficiary's] body of work meet and reasonably surpass the threshold of preponderance." As 
1 See also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ." 
2 
discussed below, we find that the exhibits do not satisfy any of the evidentiary categories described at 
8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)-(C). 
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 . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) . 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his past work as a curator 
and co-curator of solo and group art exhibitions and projects of contemporary I I art, and 
his proposed work with the Petitioner. The Beneficiary's past work includes the following: 
• ,...I ______ _.l .... (g.._ro_u .... o_e_xh_i_b_iti_·o_n)...,at Centro Cultural! I (2019) 
• I ~ (group exhibition) at Institute of Contemporary Arts 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I I c2019) 
'i=====-.(solo show byl I 
solo show b _____ ........,.Ir. at r--.,___----,---l)--"---'-.__---, 
_______ ..........,"'-'J.l.j, ............................... ___ ----.1 a..__ _________ ____.(2018) 
,...._-----..-------..,,....----.,,...---.,..,.J (group show) at Art Foundation, 
2018 
....,.,,..,,..,...,-,---------------' (solo show by._l ____ ___,I) at ..... l ___ ___, 
2018 
1--------- ..... s ..... o ...... lo ____ s-=h---ow ............ b......_ ___ ---r-') at I I (2018) 
____________________ __.(solo show byl I atO 
up show) at Centr ,..;.;u=ltu=r;..;.a~l-_. _ __.(2017) 
2016) 
1----------.....u..=~~u....i.'-l:.L..----,....J, at.__ _ __.LibraryJ 
,.__ ________________ __. (group show, 1st Clay Biennic11 I 
..__ ____ __.(2014) 
The Petitioner provided published materials pertaining to the exhibitions, including testimonial letters, 
promotional e-flyers, leaflets, exhibition photographs, screenshots of materials from venue websites, and 
screenshots of materials from other promotional websites such as INFOART .sp and I I I I As explained below, we agree with the Director that the evidence submitted does not 
satisfy this criterion . 
Some of the submitted testimonial letters contain information that is relevant to this criterion. For 
example,.__ _______ ___, Chief Curator atl I since 2017, states that he and the 
Beneficiary , a member of the museum's curatorial team, "have organized more than 20 shows ." He 
highlights the exhibition! I and the exhibition's catalogue which he and the 
Beneficiary edited in partnership with thd IArt Museum, as an example of"the Beneficiary 's 
ability to work with different persons and to engage professionals in a single project." I I I I, an art history professor with whom the Beneficiary studied during an academic exchange 
program as a doctoral student, praisesl I as "one of the most powerful and moving exhibitions I 
3 
have visited in my whole life." I I a curator at the National Gallery! I describes 
I las "highly innovative, thoughtful, and ~owerfol, easily one 
of the more interesting exhibitions I have seen during my time living inl O I' While those 
letters and others suggest that the Beneficiary was a main curator for some shows, consistent with a 
lead or starring level of participation, they do not clarify how the Beneficiary, as a curator of 
exhibitions a~ I and elsewhere, has performed in a lead or starring capacity for an event 
with a distinguished reputation. Further, the regulation requires evidence in the form of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. We consider the 
letters below in our discussion of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
Additional documentation submitted under this criterion includes translations of foreign language 
articles and interviews with the Beneficiary. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) 
states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a 
foll English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by 
the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English." Here, the Petitioner submitted translations that do not comport with the regulation. Instead 
the translations are accompanied by blanket certifications for "Published Reviews" or "Published 
Interviews" that do not identify any specific document being translated. Because these translations do 
not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), they have significantly diminished probative value. 
Among the published materials is a ortion of an article that the Petitioner indicates is from the website 
www.oglobo.globo.com titled that briefl 
describes the works in and states that it '.__ _______ ----r----~---------,,-----' 
[the Beneficiary.]" A part of an additional article from 
www.oglobo.globo.com titled '.__ _ ___,--------,------.------.....1...;:;,:,:.=.:..; 
Beneficiary was the assistant cu~r~a~to~r~t~oL----,-------1__._..J.U.L..l-7------.==d....~~· 
of a review from the website states that 
multiple perspectives in the [Centro CulturalL-_....-- ___ ..................................................... .........a ..................................................................... ......., 
indicates is from the website www.arth~o:'.l:P:..:.:·c:::,:'O~ti:!ctl~e~d: .... :-------------=----=--------' 
at the Institute of Contemporary Art~ t indicates the Beneficiary is a guest curator and 
describes the exhibit as "[the Beneficiary's] project as part of his ongoing research as a curator, critic 
and art historian that explores the impact that plural histories had on contempora: art." A portion of 
a review from the website The Brooklyn Rail fo~ _ I 
in which the Beneficiary is not mentioned, indicates the exhibition "brings together new video and 
installation works by twenty-six artists from Latin America, Southeast Asia and Hong Kong and 
Macau." A portion of a review ofj I from the website Corridor8 indicates the Beneficiary co-
curated the exhibition withl I and developed it from his doctoral studies at 
I ~ University. 
In addition, among the interviews is a portion of an interview with the Beneficiary from the Dutch 
website J egens & Tevens in which he discusses his role as a curator but does not menti
1
n any 
1
specific 
production or event. Other intlrview plrtions from the websites SP-Arte.com and discuss 
subjects raised by the exhibitions and! I The above articles and interviews, however, do 
not establish the distinguished reputation of the exhibitions curated by the Beneficiary. Rather, like the 
aforementioned promotional e-flyers, leaflets, photographs, and screenshots of materials from venue 
websites, they reflect that the exhibitions have recently occurred, recently opened, or will soon open. 
4 
Further, the Petitioner did not document the reach of the aforementioned media such that a promotion 
on their websites is indicative of the distinguished reputation of the event. 
Finally, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary "will perform" services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events with a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has not offered 
additional evidence that would distinguish the Beneficiary's proposed role as leading or starring within 
the company's upcominJ productions. It indicates in the job offer that the Beneficiary will work as 
an "Associate Curator o I Art within the Curatorial department," and it provides in the 
petition that as such associate curator he will be "[ r ]esponsible for the acquisition, study, care, di~ 
interpretation, record keeping and publication of the museum's modem and contemporary L__J 
I lart collection in coordination with the department head; serving as in-house subject expert 
and sharing information in multiple formats with a variety of audiences." Within its initial submission, 
the Petitioner provided an additional letter from its director,.__ _______ __. which lists the 
responsibilities associated with the Beneficiary's position at the museum and discusses the Petitioner's 
business intentions, but it does not identify specific productions or events in which the Beneficiary 
will participate or offer evidence that would denote his role as leading or starring within those 
upcoming events, and demonstrate their distinguished reputation. In sum, the Petitioner has neither 
identified nor documented, through submission of the evidence prescribed by regulation, the 
Beneficiary's previous or forthcoming lead or starring role in events with a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements 
of this evidentiary criterion. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. We agree. Specifically, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate published material by or about the Beneficiary in major newspapers, 
trade journals, magazines, or other major media. 2 
While the previously discussed articles from the websites www.oglobo.globo.com, ~I-----~ 
www.arthop.co, The Brooklyn Rail, and Corridor8 and the aforementioned interviews from SP­
Arte.com an<] I confirm that the Beneficiary curated those showcases, they are not critical reviews 
or other journalistic coverage recognizing his achievements in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided the aforementioned portion of an interview with the Beneficiary 
from the Dutch website Jegens & Tevens that appears to be about him, in which he discusses his role 
as a curator. Further, the Petitioner submitted several articles written by the Beneficiary between 2009 
and 2019 as an art critic and art historian, including reviews of contemporary artists, art exhibitions, art 
2 Several of the articles by and about the Beneficiary include translations that are accompanied by blanket certifications 
and, therefore. do not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(3), as previously discussed. Thus, they have 
significantly diminished probative value. 
5 
books, and topics in art history, published in websites such as Folha De! I Artelogie, Performatus, 
Contemporartes, an in rint ma azines includin ArtNexus, Revista ojl O l Cartema, 
on the Beneficiary's blog,__ __________ __., and in exhibition catalogues. The Director's 
request for evidence (RFE) requested evidence of the print circulation and internet readership of the 
publications in which the Beneficiary 's interview and articles appeared. Within its response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner asserted that Art Nexus "has a circulation of 29,000 copies per issue," and the print 
version of Falha I I has "a circulation of more than 330,000 daily copies." The Petitioner 
includes no corroborative evidence to demonstrate the level of print circulation and internet readership of 
any of the publications relative to other print or online media to demonstrate that these publications can 
be considered "major" media. Further, the Petitioner has not explained how the interview with the 
Beneficiary or the articles written by him rise to the level of "national or international recognition for 
achievements" in the field. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the eligibility 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
The Director's decision stated that the Beneficiary met this criterion without explaining her 
determination or indicating what evidence she found to establish the Beneficiary's performance in a 
lead, starring, or critical roles for distinguished organizations or establishments. For the reasons outlined 
below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted documentary evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and the Director 's determination on this issue 
will be withdrawn. 
The documentatiof submitted sjows that since 2017 the Beneficiary has performed as part of the 
curatorial team of ... _____ ___._ under..._ _______ _. the chief curator. The scope of this 
evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary 's role for distinguished 
organizations. A lead or starring role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational 
hierarchy and should be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent 
from a beneficia act on the organization or the establishment's activities . The aforementioned 
letter from..._ ______ __, does not detail how the Beneficiary was responsible for the success 
or standing of.__ ___ __,to a degree consistent with the meaning of a "critical role." For example, 
his letter does not distinguish the Beneficiary's position from those of the museum's other curators, to 
establish how his position fit within the overall hierarchy of the organization, or detail the manner in 
which his work has resulted in a measurable level of success for the museum. Based on the above, 
the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary's past role for that establishment was in 
a lead, starring or critical capacity. 
The Petitioner must also establish that the Beneficiary will prospectively provide services in a lead, 
starring, or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As 
previously stated, the petition and job offer indicate that the Beneficiary will work for the petitioning 
museum as "Associate Curator of! IArt within the Curatorial department." Within its 
6 
initial submission, the Petitioner provided the aforementioned letter frotrj I who states that 
the Beneficiary's role as an associate curator of~-----~Art is an essential member of the 
Petitioner's team "enhancing the museum's relationship with the public through the institution's core 
values of excellence, engagement, commitment to the community, and global vision." Within its 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a farther letter froml I indicating 
that his previous letter "lists the 22 position duties planned for [ the Beneficiary]." Here, while letters 
froml !describe how the Beneficiary's work will be consistent with that job title, his letter 
does not establish how the Beneficiary will perform in a lead or critical role for the petitioning 
organization. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements offered as expert 
testimony. See Matter o_f Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we are 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the Beneficiary's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; we may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the foreign national's eligibility. Id. at 795-796. The submitted evidence does not describe 
how the Beneficiary will contribute to the petitioning organization as a whole, or how his position fits 
within the overall hierarchy of the company. The letters from! ldo not explain how, in his 
proposed role the Beneficiary will perform in a lead role or be responsible for the Petitioner's success 
or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of a "critical role," when compared, for example, 
to other associate curators or the department head. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has performed, 
and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the 
decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has a record o_f major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box 
o_ffice receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
This criterion specifically requires documentation of commercially or critically acclaimed successes as 
reported in publications. The Director determined the Petitioner does not satisfy this criterion, and the 
record supports that conclusion. The Petitioner has submitted an extensive catalog edited by the 
Beneficiary for the exhibition I I The documentation submitted does not report evidence 
equivalent to "box office receipts" or "motion picture or television ratings" as referenced in the regulation, 
or otherwise provide any factual indicators to establish whether the Beneficiary has achieved "major 
commercial or critically acclaimed success" in the field. Assuming the correlation had been established, 
the record does not include evidence that such critical or commercial success was memorialized in trade 
journals, major newspapers, or other publications such that his achievement was acknowledged in the 
industry at-large. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies this evidentiary 
criterion. 
7 
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. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
The Director determined that the evidence did not satisfy this criterion. In support of this criterion the 
Petitioner submitted various testimonial letters from art curators and historians , praising the 
Beneficiary's skills in the field ofl I art curation. 3 Here , the letters do not sufficiently 
explain how the Beneficiary has received significant recognition in the field for his work , nor has the 
Petitioner shown that the letters themselves constitute such recognition . While the authors discuss his 
talent and dedication, the letters do not discuss the Beneficiary's achievements in the field beyond 
confirming that he performed his work admirably in prior projects. For instance, in his aforementioned 
letter,I I the Beneficiary's supervisor ad ! states that the Beneficiary's 
"long history of curating exhibitions, supporting important new artists, and developing major 
programs marks [him] as a leader in his field ." He confirms that the Beneficiary contributed articles 
to the exhibition catalogue of the 32nd Biennial I I and participated in professional lectures 
and workshops at such institutions as the University I l the Institute of Contemporary Arts 
I I and thd lschool of Arts 
In addition.,! I a curator ofl I Art at '---------~-L.a=-, 
§ 
praises the Beneficiary's "extraordinary talent and a deep knowledge of the region.' 
ssociate curator o1 I Collections at the I I Institute in 
praises the Beneficiary's contributions to a workshop she conducted, specifically his 
knowledge of colonial to contemporarv! I art and suggestion for curatorial narratives for 
a related, upcoming exhibition . I I a professor of visual arts for whom the 
Beneficiary organized a solo exhibition while the Beneficiary was a resident curator at thel I 
I I praises the Beneficiary's "impressive experience, despite his young age" and his 
"interpersonal amazin~ skills that allowed him to cultivate a strong team environment and gain the 
respect of his peers." I .... ______________ __.lmdl O ,I rofessors of art 
history who evaluated the Beneficiary's work in the doctoral fellowship program 
I I' describe him as dedicated to "the establishment of multicultural un erstan mg an 
productive collaborations" and "an internationally sought-after curator regardless of his still young 
age ." 
Further, I I artistic director of thel !Museum of Art---- indicates he 
recommended the Beneficiary as a contributor to thel I art ma azine for which the 
Beneficiary "has written on some of the most relevant exhibitions . .. i ... :1 I 
I 
L professor oft I Art at University o notes that 
lwas reviewed by publications such as Art Review and O Globo. ~--:--- a 
professor of art history who advised the Beneficiary during his doctoral studies a asserts that 
the Beneficiary "has produced a remarkable body of work that achieved recognition in and in 
important art centers abroad ." 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony . See 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec . at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding a foreign national 's eligibility for the benefit sought. In addition, such 
letters from experts supporting the petition are not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. 
Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp . 1103, 1108 (E.D.N .Y. 1989), 
ajf'd , 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) . It remains the Petitioner's burden to show the Beneficiary's 
significant recognition for achievements in the field. As discussed, the testimonial evidence submitted 
does not meet this burden. Overall, while the Beneficiary has earned the respect of his colleagues, the 
documentation submitted is insufficient to establish that he has received significant recognition for 
achievements in the field. 
Further, we note that several of the testimonial letters, such as th1se fro~ fil I and 
I !mention the Beneficiary's receipt of the Prize in 2015, and 
characterize the award as 1 I highest honor given to art curators~._ ___ ___, who also received 
the award in 2015, describes it as "the most prestigious! !prize for the arts." While we 
acknowledge that the award represents some recognition of the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner has not 
documented its significance. The record contains insufficient evidence establishing the significance 
and magnitude of thel bward in the field and the extent to which the winners of the 
award are recognized beyond the issuing entity. The Petitioner did not provide general information 
about the competition (such as the eligibility criteria , or the percentage of entrants who earned some 
type of recognition). Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the recipients of the award were 
announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with a significant national or 
international award . Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that it represents significant 
recognition for achievements from the award-issuing organization . 
Based on the above, we find that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has received 
significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other 
recognized experts in the field o~ I art. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
Finally, as discussed earlier, the Petitioner argued that "[s]hould more regulatory certainty be needed 
to reach the level for granting the extraordinary ability nonirnrnigrant approval sought, applying the 
'comparable evidence' category ... makes [the Beneficiary's] body of work meet and reasonably 
surpass the threshold of preponderance." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that 
"[i]f the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility ." Thus, a petitioner must demonstrate why the regulatory criterion does not pertain to a 
beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence 
required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). An inability to meet a regulatory criterion is not necessarily 
evidence that it does not readily apply to the beneficiary 's occupation. Here, the Petitioner does not 
explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the Beneficiary's occupation. The fact 
that the Petitioner provided documentation that does not meet at least three criteria is not evidence that 
an associate curator o~ lart could not do so. In fact, the Petitioner claimed to meet five 
9 
other criteria. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it meets the 
requirements of the comparable evidence provision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted qualifying material under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), nor does it meet the requirements of the comparable evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(iv)(C). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 
0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10