The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. While the Petitioner met four initial evidentiary criteria (published materials, judging, scholarly articles, exhibitions), the evidence, including claims of four artists adopting his techniques, was not deemed significant enough. Expert letters were often from affiliated sources or qualified their praise, describing him as a 'young artist' or 'rising star,' rather than unequivocally placing him at the field's apex, thus lacking sufficient independent, objective evidence.
