A sculptor applied for EB-1 status as an artist of extraordinary ability.  However, USCIS denied the petition since the sculptor failed to demonstrate that he had the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for extraordinary ability.  The sculptor, through counsel, appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). 

There are two ways an artist can qualify for EB-1 status as an artist of extraordinary ability.  First, the artist can show that he has received a major, internationally recognized award such as a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award.  The second, and more common method is for the artist to provide three of the following ten types of evidence:  

1)     Receipt of lesser national or international prizes or awards for excellence in their field of endeavor.

2)     Membership in associations in the field of endeavor that require outstanding achievements of their members.

3)     Published material about the alien and his work in professional journals, trade publications, or the major media.

4)     Participation, either in a group or alone, as a judge of others in the same or a similar field.

5)     Original scientific, scholarly, or artistic contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor.

6)     Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, published in professional journals or the major media.

7)     Display of the alien’s work at artistic exhibitions or showcases in more than one country.

8)     Performance in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation.

9)     Commanding a high salary compared to others in the field.

10) Commercial success in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts and sales. 

The sculptor provided proof of awards he had won, but the Service found that these awards were “local or otherwise limited in nature” and therefore did not qualify as “lesser national or international prizes or awards for excellence in their field of endeavor.”  He provided proof of an award he won in 1983, but this competition was all limited to artists between the ages of 17 and 21.  He also provided proof that he served as a curator, and won grants and commissions.  However, according to the Service, these are considered paid employment and not awards.

The artist also provided proof of his membership at an art gallery in Michigan.  However, the Service stated that there was no evidence that the gallery is an “association in the field” rather than a local art gallery.  There was also no evidence that membership is the gallery requires outstanding achievements of its members.

The sculptor also provided articles mentioning him or his work.  However, the Service found that these mentions were all in local area newspapers with a limited circulation, and do not qualify as “professional journals, trade publications, or the major media.”

The sculptor submitted evidence that he served as curator of an art exhibition in Chicago as proof that he had served as the judge of a work of others.  He claimed that as curator, he was given discretion to select which works of art would be displayed in the exhibition.  However, according to the Service, all the artists in the exhibition were from Chicago.  Since this was a local event involving only local artists, it does not demonstrate the sculptor’s national or international acclaim.

The sculptor also claimed that his sculptures constituted proof of original artistic contributions to the field.  One of his sculptures was selected to be the award statuette for the Chicago Latino Film Festival’s Lifetime Achievement Award.  However, the Service contends that there is no proof that the award statuette is a nationally or internationally recognized award, and therefore does not qualify as an artistic contribution of major significance.  The Service also found that the sculptures, which the artist claimed were of major significance, did not qualify under this category of evidence.

The sculptor provided evidence that his work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.  The service agreed that the sculptor did qualify for this category of evidence.  However, the AAO found that these exhibitions were all local events that did not attract local or international attention.

The sculptor also claimed to earn a high salary in comparison with other sculptors in the field, and submitted proof of the prevailing wage in a number of cities.  However, he did not submit proof that he did in fact earn the wage.  Also, according to the Service, since he does not earn a regular salary, proof of the prevailing wage is of little value.  The sculptor also submitted a gallery price list of his work.  But the Service found this too is not sufficient evidence that he commands a high salary.

The sculptor also submitted a number of letters from his art teachers, art dealers, patrons who have bought his sculptures and fellow artists to document his extraordinary ability.  However, according to the Service, these letters are not evidence of his extraordinary ability since they “do not establish acclaim or recognition beyond those who have dealt directly with the petitioner”.

On appeal, the sculptor claimed that his work has been compared to the works of some of the greatest sculptors in the world.  However, when the AAO did a Google search of the sculptor’s name and compared the results to those of searches done of these other sculptors, the other sculptors had thousands of hits on the Internet while the sculptor had less than forty hits.

< Back | Index | Next >

Print This Page

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.