dismissed O-1B Case: Visual Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-C-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a talent agent, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a visual artist and printmaker, as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant, a visa 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)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i). The Beneficiary is 
currently employed as a printmaker with a different petitioner pursuant to an approved 0-1 
petition. The Petitioner seeks to extend his 0-1 status for a period of three years. 1 
The Director of the Vermont 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: a significant national or international award, at least three of six possible forms of 
documentation, or comparable evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(C). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the decision was based upon an erroneous conclusion of law 
and fact and that the evidence satisfies the regulatory requirements. 
Upon de novo 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 
1 We note that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l2)(ii), an extension of stay may be authorized in increments of up to one 
year for an 0-1 beneficiary to continue or complete the same activity for which he or she was admitted, plus an 
additional IO days to allow the beneficiary to get his or her personal affairs in order. 
.
Matter of P-C-, LLC 
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, OHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or ptizes" such as "an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or 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)(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 will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See 
section 101(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv).2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The evidence indicates that in the Beneficiary studied printmaking at the 
and that since 2007 he has been employed in the United States as a 
printmaker and visual artist. The record contains the Petitioner's signed agent agreement with the 
Beneficiary, an itinerary for the period from December 17, 2017 to December 16, 2020, and signed 
employment agreements between the Beneficiary and three New York employers: 
and also called the 
a school that teaches students with special needs. These 
materials indicate that the Beneficiary will work as a visual artist, printmaker, and visiting art 
instructor. 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner seeks to demon strate the Benefici ary's sustained accla im and recogmtton of 
achievements through evidence corresponding to at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the 
evidence meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J), (2), (3), and (5). We have considered 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 I 0), in which we held that. "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
.
Matter of P-C-. LLC 
the record in its entirety in reaching this decision. As discussed below, we conclude that the record 
does not satisfy any of the claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
Evidence that the alien has per.formed, and will per.form, 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)(J). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his past solo and group fine 
art exhibitions and projects between 2012 and 2017. It submitted published materials pertaining to the 
exhibitions, testimonial letters from employers and colleagues, and photographs of some of the 
Beneficiary artwork. As explained below, we agree with the Director that the evidence submitted 
does not satisfy this criterion. 
The Petitioner maintains that between 2012 and 2013 the Beneficiary played a leading role in luxury 
watch brand anniversary exhibition of watches from its 
collection, which was displayed in and It 
provided letters from an architect with the New York firm 
whose fabrication department employed the Beneficiary on the project. He states that the 
Beneficiary "engineered and built structures for the display of watches and art," and claims that he 
played a critical role in the exhibition as "a lead project developer'' and "the only artist to work on 
the design and construction of all art installations." 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary played a leading or starring role in group 
exhibitions, and solo exhibitions at the gallery of the __ a 
healing center. The Petitioner submitted a letter from the Beneficiary's current 
artistic representative and employer, who indicates that from 2014 to 2017 his work was displayed in 
exhibitions that her studio facilitated at art gallery. She explains that the 
exhibition featured the work of _ of gallery space. She claims that his 
work was "the talk of the exhibition," and that "he was the sole exhibitor to be approached by a 
number of curators and buyers." The Petitioner also provided an e-mail from 
curator of the exhibition, which discusses her method of selecting pieces for the showcase, but does 
not mention the Beneficiary by name, other than in the subject line. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's solo art exhibitions at the gallery, the gallery's 
director, states that in 2017 she invited him to exhibit his work, after having seen several of his solo 
and group exhibitions. 
While the letters suggest that the Beneficiary was a main artist for some shows, consistent with a 
lead or starring level of participation, the regulation requires critical reviews , advertisements, 
publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. Among the advertisements are publicity 
releases about the _ exhibition published in the magazines Forbes and 
Elite Traveler, and on the webpages www.watchtime.com and www.archdaily.com. These 
3 
.
Matter cf P-C-, LLC 
published materials do not mention the Beneficiary by name as a participant in the event. The 
Petitioner urges that since his participation was "behind the scenes" it would be "unreasonable to 
expect his name to be mentioned in published materials pertaining to the event." We note, however, 
that the pieces published in Elite Traveler and www.archdaily.com credit 
by name as "the creative mind behind the overall design of the exhibition," and the one 
who designed the display structures engineered and built by to "house a number of historic 
watches, media displays and a watchmaking workshop." Upon review, there is 
insufficient evidence to document that the Beneficiary performed services in a lead or starring role in 
the event. Instead, the materials and testimonials indicate that the timepieces, watchmakers, and 
accompanying art exhibitions were the lead focus of the exhibition, which was designed by 
The Beneficiary's role with is examined below in our discussion of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
The press releases about the group exhibitions published on the webpage 
do not mention the Beneficiary by name as a participant in the events. Advertisements for the 2014 
exhibition published in the newspapers Yomitime and New York Biz do not single him out 
as having performed as a lead or starring participant. Advertisements for his solo exhibitions at the 
gallery on its webpage and in the newspapers Yomifime and Shukan NY Seikatsu confirm that 
he was a primary participant in those events. The Petitioner, however, did not corroborate the 
reputation of the or events, or the reach of the above media such that a promotion in 
those publications is indicative of the distinguished reputation of the events. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's current and proposed role as a visiting art teacher 
at is in a leading role for distinguished productions or events. 3 In support, it cites a letter from 
the school's principal, stating that "[ the Beneficiary] has singlehandedly 
improved the artistic voice of our school ... [p ]airing physical activity with art" and crediting his art 
instruction methods as having "offered the students another means of expression" However, while 
the letter suggests that the Beneficiary's art classes may be highly regarded events at consistent 
with a distinguished reputation, as noted above, the regulation requires critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. 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 new5papers, trade journals , magazines, or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) . 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner also makes reference to the Beneficiary's role in events at a different public 
school, . however, the record does not contain corroborating evidence of his role at that school. Statements 
made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. 
4 
.
Matter of P-C-, LLC 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provides advertisements pertaining to the Beneficiary's solo 
and group art exhibitions in 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2016, published on the webpage 
highlineopenstudios.org, and in the J~panese-language publications and webpages Yomitime, 
Maruhari, New York Japion, New York Biz, Shukan NY Seikatsu, and Daily Sun New York. We 
agree with the Director's determination that the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary 
satisfies this criterion. 
Upon review, the evidence does not demonstrate that the publications are major media. For example, 
the Petitioner does not provide corroborative evidence to demonstrate the reach of the webpage 
www.highlineopenstudios.org, such as the level of circulation or readership. Regarding the Japanese­
language publications, it provided readership information from their webpages. The website of Nnv 
York Biz indicates that the publication is "delivered directly to 1058 Japanese companies in 36 
countries," but it does not provide circulation or distribution data for the publication. Information from 
the publisher of Maruhari magazine indicates that it is a regional publication, with a circulation of 
45,000 in the Japan. 
The webpages of the remaining published materials indicate that they are free, weekly, local 
publications distributed in the New York-area. The data from Daily Sun New York states that the print 
version of the publication has a circulation of 15,000 copies, distributed "to approximately 300 places," 
and does not provide readership statistics for its daily online application. The material from New York 
Japion claims it has a circulation of 24,000, copies, distributed to over 360 restaurants and other 
businesses. The information from Shukan NY Seikatsu shows that it has a circulation of 20,000 
copies placed in over 260 locations. The Yomitime webpage lists a circulation of 20,000 copies 
"through outlets at hundreds of major Japanese restaurants and groceries." Finally, the press kit 
from the free weekly Daily Sun New York indicates that the publication has a circulation of 20,000 
copies, distributed to 300 locations. The Petitioner does not offer evidence that the level of readership 
of any these publications is commensurate with major media. 4 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 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 scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Beneficiary's 
position within the organizations that have employed him. The Petitioner contends that he satisfies 
this criterion based upon his past work and proposed work with his past work with 
and his past work and proposed work with In support of this criterion, the Petitioner 
submitted the above-referenced letters from and 
as well as a letter from We agree with the Director's 
determination that the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
4 To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
5 
.
Matter of P-C-. LLC 
The Petitioner provided the above-mentioned letter from who states that she has 
employed the Beneficiary as a master printmaker assistant at her studio, teaching, assisting, 
exhibiting, and selling artwork, and asserts that he "is paramount to the studio's success." 
The record also included the previously discussed letters from who indicates that 
the Beneficiary played a critical role in the exhibition as "a lead project 
developer" and "the only artist to work on the design and construction of all art installations." 
indicates that he "was essential in helping to project onto the global stage." In 
his second letter, he emphasizes that the Beneficiary was the only visual artist on several of the 
company's projects, and praises his talent, versatility, efficiency, and speed, which he claims gave 
the company "a more competitive edge in the fabrication market." letters do not 
confirm the dates of the Beneficiary's employment with his company, or identify any other 
projects on which he worked. 
The Petitioner further provided the above-mentioned letter from stating that 
between 2016 and 2017 the Beneficiary helped develop and teach two new courses, 
which combined physical education with watercolor illustration 
and printmaking skills, and provided the students with an annual showcase of their work. She 
asserts that this art and movement program has been "integral" to the school as it has "offered the 
students another means of expression." She notes that the program is "the only one of its kind in 
[the] school district." a physical education teacher at with whom the 
Beneficiary taught, states that the Beneficiary's art and movement program has become a permanent 
part of the student coursework, and he credits it with having "changed the way art and physical 
movement is being taught in our school," and being "essential in promoting artistic progress within 
the school." 
While the letters attest that the Beneficiary has performed admirably on vanous projects, the 
evidence does not establish that his role as a master printmaker assistant with visual 
artist on project, or visiting art instructor with has been in a leading 
or critical role for those employers. While an organization's staff may consider some of the 
Beneficiary's achievements to be of great benefit to the organization, the focus of this criterion, 
based on the plain language of the regulation, is his role itself. The evidence submitted does not 
establish, for example, how his position fit within the overall hierarchy of the organization. A 
leading 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 evident from the Beneficiary's 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The Beneficiary 's performance in this 
role should establish whether the role was critical for an organization or establishment as a whole. 
Upon review, the record does not establish that his role has been lead or critical those companies. 
For example, while information from website indicates that it is composed of three divisions 
(Studio, Research, and Fabrication), and staffed with a wide range of special ists across disciplines, 
the record does not contain an organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the 
.
Matter of P-C-, LLC 
Beneficiary's position fit within the hierarchy of the company. Similarly, although information from 
website indicates that it employs 49 full time teachers, the record does not contain evidence 
documenting how the Beneficiary's visiting art instructor position fits within the hierarchy of the 
school and differentiates him from its other visiting instructors, let alone its full time teachers or 
senior administrative staff. Finally, the record does not contain an organizational chart or other 
evidence documenting how the Beneficiary's master printmaker assistant position fits within the 
hierarchy of The Petitioner has also not established that the above entities enjoy a 
distinguished reputation in the Beneficiary's field. Although the Petitioner has provided promotional 
items from the organizations' webpages, it has not provided published materials demonstrating their 
distinguished reputation in the field of visual arts and printmaking, nor do the testimonial letters 
sufficiently address that issue. 
The reference letters submitted by the Petitioner are not without weight and have been considered 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'/, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Based on the above, the documentation submitted by 
the Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary's past positions were in a lead, starring or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation in the field. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has received sign(ficant 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 Petitioner maintains that the testimonial letters submitted from 
and satisfy this criterion. We agree with the Director's determination 
that the submitted testimonials and other documentary evidence do not satisfy this criterion. 5 The 
letters primarily discuss the Beneficiary's innate talent and artistry rather than his achievements as a 
visual artist and printmaker. Those letters that did address specific achievements of the Beneficiary, 
such as his exhibitions at and the gallery, do not explain how his achievements to 
date have received significant recognition from organizations, critics, government agencies , or other 
recognized experts in the field, nor has the Petitioner shown that the letters themselves constitute 
such recognition .6 
5 While we discuss only a sampling of the submitted letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 We also note that all of the letters submitted are from the Beneficiary's own current and former employers and 
colleagues, and do not demonstrate significant recognition outside of that circle. 
"7 
.
Matter of P-C-, LLC 
Within its initial submission, the Petitioner provided the above-referenced letter from 
who showcased the Beneficiary's artwork at group and solo exhibitions. She indicates that 
from 2014 to 2017, his work was exhibited at the group art exhibition that her studio 
facilitated with the She claims that the Beneficiary was "the talk of 
the exhibition" and ''the sole exhibitor to be approached by a number of curators and buyers." Her 
studio also exhibited his work in the group exhibitions and 
where she indicates his pieces "sold rather quickly" and "generated the most attention." She 
describes him as "an exceptional [p ]rintmaker" and "an artist of extraordinary ability." 
In addition, the record contains a letter from a printmaker and former vice president of the 
who states that a piece of the Beneficiary's work was featured 
and auctioned at the center's 2016 annual benefit at the She describes him as 
"an acclaimed artist of exceptional talent." ___ a visual artist, states that he shared past 
projects with the Beneficiary and describes him as an artist with "exquisite printmaking skills." He 
indicates that his solo exhibitions at the gallery were enthusiastically received. 
Within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), it provided a letter 
from artist who states that "one of the Beneficiary's consistent accomplishments is 
having one-person exhibitions," and cites the fact that mounted approximately five 
solo exhibitions of his work. He also asserts that he "has an impressive record of critically 
acclaimed success" in group exhibitions, such as He relates the favorable impressions of 
persons who viewed the Beneficiary's work at those exhibitions. The Petitioner response also 
included a letter from an art instructor in the 
who mentions some of the Beneficiary's past employment, including his work such as a visiting 
instructor at his employment with , and his solo and group art exhibitions, stating that he 
has garnered "awareness and public interest" in his art form. and however, do 
not indicate when they first became aware of the Beneficiary's artwork, or the basis of their 
knowledge of his past exhibitions and employment. 
Without further information and evidence, the above-referenced letters are not sufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's achievements have received significant recognition. As previously stated, USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. Matter of Caron Int'!., 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. 
It remains the Petitioner's burden to show the Beneficiary's significant recognition for achievements in 
the field. In addition , as the Petitioner acknowledge s o n appeal, if testimonial evidence lacks 
specificity , detail, or credibilit y. there is a g reater n eed for it to s ubmit co1Toborative e vidence. 
Malter of Y-B-. 21 I&N D ec. 1 I 36 (BIA 1998). Here, for the reasons discussed above. the 
testimonial evidence and other documentation in the record do not meet this burden. Overall, while 
Matter of P-C-. LLC 
the Beneficiary has earned the respect of his colleagues and employers in the visual arts and 
printmaking field, the exhibits are insufficient to demonstrate that he has received significant 
recognition for achievements in the field. 
C. Intent to Continue to Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability in the United States 
According to the employment agreement between the parties, the Beneficiary will perform services 
not only as a visual artist and printmaker but also as an instructor. However, as the Petitioner has 
not established the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability, we need not analyze whether this proposed 
role qualifies as continuing to work in the area of extraordinary ability, as required under section 
101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(ii)(A)(J). 
D. Prior Approval 
The record indicates that USCIS has previously approved petitions for 0-1 status filed on behalf of the 
Beneficiary. In the present matter, the Director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that 
the Petitioner did not meet all eligibility requirements for the requested classification. Based on the 
lack of required evidence of eligibility in the current record, we find that the Director was justified in 
denying the instant petition. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See. 
e.g .. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm 'r 1988). Further, 
our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals 
and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf 
of the beneficiary, we are not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, *l, *3 (E.D. La.), affd, 
248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the 
0-1 visa classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-C-. LLC, ID# 1963952 (AAO Dec. 19, 2018) 
9