dismissed O-1B Case: Wood Carving

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of EIomeIand Security 
20 Mass. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
68 
FILE: EAC 04 187 50327 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 061 0 4 2006 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 111 01 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. 
The Administrative Appeals Office (MO) rejected a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the 
AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be granted and the petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a company that designs and distributes religious olive woodcarvings. The beneficiary 
is a designer and carver of religious olive wood items. The petitioner seeks 0-1 classification of the 
beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i), in order to employ him as an 
olive wood carver and designer for three years at a monthly salary of $2,000. 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfied 
the standards for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
The petitioner, through counsel, timely appealed. The Vermont Service Center notified counsel that the 
appeal was filed without a properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney, 
and directed counsel to submit a 
on behalf of the etitioner. Mistakenly 
G-28 appeared to have been signed b 
timely filed a motion to reopen and reconsider. 
rejected the appeal, the motion to reconsider is granted. 
However, for the reasons discussed below, the record does not establish that the beneficiary is an alien 
with extraordinary ability in the arts who is eligible for classification under section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of 
the Act. 
,' 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 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 . . . and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability[.] 
Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) provides the following pertinent definitions: 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 3 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine 
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 ellcountered to the extent that a person described as 
prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iv), hrther prescribes: 
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, th,e 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 has been the recipient of, 
significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) 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 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 4 
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 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(9)(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. 
The beneficiary in this case is a native of Kuwait and a citizen of Palestine. The record contains no 
evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or received any si nificant n tional or 
international awards or prizes in his field. Indeed, in his July 15, 2004 letter, 
 Director 
General of the Palestinian National Authority Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, explains that 
because of the unstable political situation in the beneficiary's homeland, the beneficiary has had no 
opportunity to get "any distinguished awards." As the record shows that the beneficiary does not meet 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A), we will discuss his eligibility under the 
relevant criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B). On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary meets 
the first, second, third and fifth criteria. Counsel does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria 
that are not discussed below. 
(I) 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. 
In his letter submitted with his RFE response, counsel claims the beneficiary meets this criterion 
because he has and will continue to display his work for the petitioner at numerous churches and 
religious organizations in 
 0hio; New York and other, unspecified 
states. In his September 
 Owner of the petitioner and the beneficiary's 
father, confirms that the 
 Bethlehem Christian Families to be their 
lead designer and creator of olive wood arts in the United States." While the record may show that 
the beneficiary has performed and will perform leading services for the petitioner, the evidence does 
not demonstrate that the display and sale of the petitioner's work, in as much as they may be 
considered productions or events, have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted bulletins from four churches in the United States announcing the sale of the 
petitioner's items; an excerpt from an unidentified publication noting the sale of the petitioner's 
products; an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which states that the petitioner's carvings 
would be on sale at a local "Fair Trade Fair;" and letters from 11 religious officials from churches in 
the United States, Germany and Belgium who confirm that the beneficiary has represented the 
petitioner at sales of the petitioner's products or that they or their parishioners have purchased some 
of the beneficiary's work. While some of these documents might arguably be called advertisements, 
publicity releases, publications or endorsements, none of them establish that the display and sale of 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 5 
the beneficiary's own work, or that of other craftsman represented by the petitioner, has a 
distinguished reputation in the beneficiary's field. The record does not indicate that any of the 
aforementioned 11 religious officials are experts or critics in the field of religious art. The church 
bulletin announcements, unidentified announcement and the newspaper article also do not discuss 
the display and sale of the beneficiary's work as an artist, but rather describe the plight of the 
Christian families in Bethlehem whom the petitioner represents. Accordingly, the beneficiary does 
not meet this criterion. 
(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. 
Counsel claims the beneficiary meets this criterion because individuals and organizations in Bethlehem 
and elsewhere have praised his work and because he was mentioned in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 
article. The record does not support counsel's claim. The support letters may praise the beneficiary's 
work, but the letters are not published materials, as required by this regulatory criterion. The sole 
published article that mentions the beneficiary is that from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. This article 
quotes the beneficiary and briefly discusses his work as a representative of the petitioner in selling the 
religious figurines made by Christian families in Bethlehem. The article does not critically review the 
beneficiary's own work and the record is devoid of any evidence that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is 
a major newspaper with national or international circulation. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not 
meet this criterion. 
(3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for 
organizations and establishments thal have a distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in 
newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 
Although the beneficiary may have performed and will perform in a leading or critical role for the 
petitioner, the evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner has a distinguished reputation. The 
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article indicates that the petitioner is "Fair Trade certified," but does not 
substantively discuss the petitioner's reputation as an artistic organization or establishment. The 
church bulletins and support letters also fail to demonstrate that the petitioner has a distinguished 
reputation. Rather, the record indicates that the petitioner has received limited recognition for its 
work to support olive wood artisans from the Bethlehem Christian community whose past income 
from religious tourism has largely been depleted due to political unrest in their homeland. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received signzjcant recognition for achievements JFom 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in thejeld 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. 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted support letters which indicate that he is well-respected in his homeland. In his 
aforementioned July 15, 2004 letter, Mr.(of the Palestinian National Authority Ministry of 
Tourism and Antiquities) states that the beneficiary is a prominent artist in the field of wood carving 
and designing, but that due to the political situation, he has been unable to demonstrate a record of 
prominence. ~r. confirms that the beneficiary is recognized in Palestine as a "well qualified" 
, 
artist with "significant achievements in this art where only a few number in the Holy Land i.e. 
Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas are characterized as rominent artists in this field." The petitioner also 
submitted a letter dated March 18,2004 from Mayor of Bethlehem, who recommends 
the beneficiary "due to his excellent career in designing olive woodcarvings figures of Christian models 
. . . . He is considered one of the best in Bethlehem city area in this work." An April 6,2004 letter from 
the Holy Land Handicraft Cooperative Society, similarly confirms that the beneficiary is "a well known 
wood carver in [the] Bethlehem area." Additionally, the February 3, 2004 letter fro 
h 
Chairman of the Board of the Fatima Olive Wood Works, identified as the "largest souvenir s op in 
Bethlehem," states that the beneficiary is "a very well known designer." Some of the letters from 
religious officials in the United States and Europe (discussed above under the first criterion) also praise 
the beneficiary's work and refer to him as a well-known artist. 
However, apart fro 
 eneral affirmation that the beneficiary is a well-known artist, Mr. Ismail, 
Ms. nd 
 o not clearly indicate their expertise or knowledge of the beneficiary's 
achievements. For example, Mr.imply describes the beneficiary's work and states that it "is 
highly recognized by most of pilgrims who purchase such items." The letters from religious officials in 
the United States and Europe also fail to substantively discuss the beneficiary's work and do not 
indicate their authority, expertise or knowledge of the beneficiary's artistic achievements. Rather, they 
simply state that they or their parishioners were pleased with their urchases of the benefici 
 's work 
or other articles sold by the petitioner. For example, Pastor ofthe 
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania states that the beneficiary was "very well received by our parishioners who 
were impressed by the quality of the articles as well as the reasonable prices." 
In his September 22, 2004 letter, Mr. 
 the petitioner's owner and the beneficiary's 
father, cites the beneficiary's design o 
 for American Christians as an example of 
his innovative work and claims that the beneficiary "is one of the few olive wood professionals capable 
of designing new pieces." However, the record contains no testimonials from recognized experts in the 
beneficiary's field that discuss or even mention the beneficiary's holy water dispenser or his allegedly 
innovative design work in general. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Comparable Evidence 
' 
On appeal, counsel requests that we consider "the totalities of the evidence of [the beneficiary's] 
mission, his innovative design work, the national recognition that he has earned in the "Holy Land," the 
international acclaim that he as [sic] earned from clergy in the Holy Land, in the United States and in 
Europe, [and] the graphic example of the creativity of his design" as comparable evidence of the 
beneficiary's eligibility., However, counsel'has not established that at least three of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(3)(iv)(B) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. On appeal, counsel 
intimates that the beneficiary is prominent in the "narrow field of art" of religious, olive wood carvings 
EAC 04 187 50327 
Page 7 
made by Christian families in Bethlehem. Yet counsel cannot narrow the beneficiary's field to such an 
extent that it excludes any meaningful comparison to other artists engaged in similar work. Moreover, 
even if we recognized the beneficiary's field as described by counsel, counsel has not explained why the 
regulatory criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. We recognize that the petitioner 
may have been impeded from participating in international exhibitions and obtaining critical reviews of 
his work due to the political situation in Palestine. However,,the record contains sufficient evidence of 
the beneficiary's work from which to assess his eligibility under the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 2 14.2(3)(iv)(B). 
Consultation with an Appropriate US. Peer Group 
Beyond the director's decision, the petitioner also failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility because 
it did not submit a consultation with an appropriate U.S. peer group, as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(5). On the Form 1-129 Supplement, the petitioner listed the Holy Land Handicraft 
Cooperative Society ("the Society") as the beneficiary's recognized peer group. According to 
documents about the Society submitted by the petitioner, the Society is located in Palestine and 
promotes the h afts traditions of the Palestinian people in the Bethlehem area. The April 6, 2004 
letter from Mr.# Chairman of the Board of the Society, thus does not qualifj as a consultation with 
an appropriate . peer group pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(5). The petitioner has 
not established that an appropriate U.S. peer group does not exist pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(0)(5)(i)(G) or that the beneficiary is eligible for a waiver of the consultation requirement 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 21h.2(0)(5)(ii)(~). Consequently, the petition must also be 
denied for lack of the required consultation. 
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 of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal kill be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is granted. The rejection of the appeal is withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed.