dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identi(ying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PVBLICCoPY 
DATE: 
MAR 1 2 201Z 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
V.S. Department of Homeland Security 
V.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cfJi-15~ 
Perry Rhew rut' 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); see also H.R. 723 We Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990). The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective 
evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under 
at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel provides a statement on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and indicates 
that he would submit a brief to the AAO within 30 days of the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal 
October 4, 2010. As of this date, more than 16 months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
The AAO will adjudicate the appeal based on the record before the director, taking into account 
counsel's assertions on the Form I-290B. The AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination 
that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) the alien 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. [d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.l With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 c.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DO], 381 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the 
court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that she is a member of more than one association in her field. Second, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the plural) of 
its members. The final requirement is that admittance is judged, or adjudicated, by nationally or 
internationally recognized experts in their field. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner su 
author of this letter is 
~ 
petitioner failed to submit evidence of the membership 
requirements for this association. The AAO will not presume exclusive membership requirements 
from the general reputation of a given association, as the association's reputation may derive from its 
size, the number of symposiums it hosts or other factors independent of the exclusive nature of its 
membership. As the record does not contain the bylaws or other official documentation of the 
association's membership criteria, the AAO cannot evaluate whether the petitioner's membership is 
a qualifying one. The petitioner also failed to provide evidence that admittance to the _ 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
Association of Performing Arts is determined by nationally or internationally recognized experts in 
the field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of 
"associations" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory 
criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, 
the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 
*1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree 
rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of memberships that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements that the petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must primarily be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's 
work in the field under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must 
also appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). 
Professional or major trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To 
qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in 
a predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner met the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. The AAO departs from the director's eligibility determination related to this criterion for the 
reasons outlined below. An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements 
of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for 
denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Counsel does not assert that the submitted evidence appeared in professional or major trade 
publications, and as a result, the AAO will not consider the submitted evidence to originate from these 
types of publications. At issue is whether the material appeared in other major media. The petitioner 
provides evidence in the form of several news articles about her troupe appearing in the Houston 
Chronicle, the State Times of Baton Rouge, the Toronto Star, and the Times Journal. She also 
submitted articles about her that appeared in the World Journal, Community News and Overseas 
Chinese Community. Two other translations contain the phrase "Toronto News Report" and "_ 
News" but these phrases appear to represent the section of the publication rather than name of the 
publication itself, which the translator did not identify. All of the articles that are in a foreign language 
are accompanied by a certified English translation. 
The articles about the petitioner's troupe are not "about" her relating to her work as required by the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Of the articles 
translation identifies the is entitled, 
Featured Show in October Show Supported by the Local Professors," 
appearing in Community News and authored by Yet, this translation fails to provide the date 
in which the article was published, and consequently fails to meet the requirements plainly stated under 
this criterion. The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[s]uch evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." Because the petitioner failed to 
comply with 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the AAO cannot determine that the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in 
this proceeding. 
Notwithstanding the above defect of the translations, if the petitioner contends that the published 
material constitutes major media, she has failed to establish the circulation data of the above named 
newspapers, and she has consequently failed to establish these newspapers are a form of major media. 
The petitioner also provides no information related to the distribution data of the newspapers to 
establish this published material has a national rather than a regional reach within the country in which 
each newspaper is published. Publications with only a regional reach are not considered to be major 
media. While the petitioner submitted a few articles reflecting published material about the petitioner 
and her work, the petitioner failed to establish that the material was published in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Merely submitting published material about the petitioner and 
her work without establishing that the material was published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the evidence satisfies every element 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. As such, the AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance 
in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain language of the 
regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether the 
petitioner has made scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic or business-related contributions, whether 
they are original, and whether they rise to the level of contributions "of major significance in the 
field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15,2003). 
On appeal counsel asserts that various forms of evidence indicate that the petitioner's "unique 
original performance and pioneering works are selected by top academic institutions of Chinese 
operas in contemporary China as teaching showcase [sic] and research subjects." While some of the 
expert letters contain such assertions, each letter lacks specifics of how the petitioner's work has 
produced a significant impact on her field as a whole. 
_ founder and President of the that hundreds of 
performers have studied under the petitioner. However, fails to explain how the petitioner's 
instruction is original or identify any impact that the petitioner's instruction has had on the field as a 
whole. Merely instructing students in a traditional art form without some identifiable original 
influence on the field is insufficient to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. • 
also indicates that she uses 
s to explain why the recordings 
use of the petitioner's work has 
. 's work has been of major 
indicates that the 
Page 9 
The remammg expert letters describe the petitioner's achievements and recogmtlOn without 
specifically explaining how the petitioner's contributions are original or of major significance. The 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court 
reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they 
cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opmlOns statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 
24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). While the 
petitioner has earned the admiration of her references, there is no evidence demonstrating that she 
has made original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record 
does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's original influence on other Chinese Opera performers 
working in this traditional field, nor does it show that the field has significantly changed as a result 
of her work. 
The record lacks evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is original or has significantly 
impacted her field or otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work is original and has been 
unusually influential, widely applied by the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of 
major significance, the petitioner cannot establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion 
based on the petitioner's "performances in the Chinese Beijing Opera exhibitions." However, based 
on a review of the record of proceeding the AAO must withdraw the findings of the director for this 
criterion for the reasons discussed below. An application or petition that fails to comply with the 
technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not 
identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has 
been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. akin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 
(D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not 
fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created 
tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion as the evidence is not qualifying 
under the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its pOSItIOn in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role 
should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. 
The petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for 
organizations or establishments as a whole. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the 
regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster' s 
online dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence.,,3 
Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and 
understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments claimed under this 
criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or a similar reputation. In the director's 
decision, he concluded that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The AAO departs 
from the director's eligibility determination related to this criterion. An application or petition that 
fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the 
3 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on February 28, 2012, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 11 
Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. 
DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner submits several letters from experts in the field. The 
director found that the initial evidence submitted with the petition was insufficient to demonstrate 
eligibility for this criterion and served the petitioner with a uest for additional evidence . In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a letter from 
_, dated August 23, 2010. 
The initial filing brief asserts that the petitioner has performed in a leading role for the_ 
in performances around the world. The fact that an organization 
provides performances in multiple venues around the world is insufficient to demonstrate that it 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. drafted a letter submitted with the initial petition dated 
May 1, 2008, wherein he states, "During her distinguished career, _ has performed as the 
lead actress with the - one of the foremost operatic companies 
in the world - and many other organizations." The Houston Chronicle article focuses on the 
company's struggle with lost luggage and the State Times article merely reviews a performance. 
Neither article addresses the reputation of the The record 
contains no evidence regarding the 
petitioner has failed to establish that this organization is one that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation, she may not rely upon it as a qualifying entity under this criterion. 
_references counsel's initial assertion regarding the petitioner's role as an educator in the 
of South-East Asian Studies at the . of 
states that the petitioner was a 
oronto. However, neither ... 
first-hand knowledge and the petitioner provides no 
corroborating evidence from the that she worked there and that her role at the 
university was leading or critical. As such, the assertions _ makes will not serve to qualify 
the petitioner under the leading or critical role criterion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Regarding the letter he indicates the China National Peking Opera Theater is the 
"world's top Peking opera house." However, the record lacks evidence to substantiate this assertion. 
As previously noted, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Consequently, the petitioner may not rely upon the content within _letter to meet the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
also references a single instance in which the petitioner performed for 
Theater in September 2008 as an example of the petitioner's performance at 
a prestIgIOus venue. A single performance at a venue is not a leading or critical role for that venue. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence relating to this establishment's distinguished reputation, and as 
previously noted, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
As a result, the petitioner may not rely upon this assertion to meet the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
dated August 23, 2010, states: only performs in lead roles, and 
receives top recognition by . . ic whenever and wherever 
she performs, such as [at] the annual and 
the Toronto Arts Council in 2007, 2008 and 201 " continues by indicating that the 
ticket prices increase when the petitioner performs. letter fails to identify any specific 
organizations or establishments for which the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. _ 
••• tnnentions annual Peking Opera Galas that are supported by two organizations. However, the 
petitioner failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the Peking Opera Gala is a qualifying entity 
contemplated by the regulation rather than an annual festive event. 
The petitioner provides no evidence of performing in a leading or critical role for any organizations 
or establishments as required by the regulation. Additionally, none of the letters the petitioner 
provided establish that she has played a leading or critical role for the organizations named in the 
letters. The petitioner provides insufficient evidence to establish any of the above named 
organizations enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner failed to establish that she meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. As 
such, the AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion anticipates a petitioner will establish eligibility through volume of sales or box office 
receipts as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As evidence relating to this criterion, the petitioner provided a photocopy of a foreign language 
document and its translation into English. This document reflects the ticket prices for a performance in 
which the petitioner appeared. The document, however, does not provide the number of tickets sold. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of commercial 
successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting documentation indicating that the 
petitioner appeared in performances does not meet the requirements of this regulatory criterion. The 
record does not include evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner has 
achieved commercial successes in the performing arts. For instance, there is no evidence showing that 
performances headlined by the petitioner consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out 
Page 13 
performances or resulted in greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature her. 
While August 23,2010, letter asserts that when the petitioner performs at the Leah Posluns 
Theater, ticket prices are increased and the shows are virtually sold out, simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 
that she meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Notwithstanding this 
fundamental defect and because the director reached the next step, the AAO will review the evidence in 
the aggregate as part of the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is a final merits determination that considers all 
of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner offers her membership in a single association, for which she failed to provide the 
membership requirements, and she failed to provide evidence indicating that members are selected by 
nationally or internationally recognized experts in her field. In addition to not meeting the plain 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the evidence is not indicative of 
sustained acclaim. The petitioner failed to establish that her single membership with the China 
Association of Performing Arts reflects that she has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. See 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In instances such as this, where the petitioner fails to demonstrate the caliber or the geographic reach of 
the publications upon which she relies, and she does not even establish that the published material about 
her appears in professional or major trade publications or other major media, she cannot demonstrate 
that she is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field of endeavor, or that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise. 
Although the AAO found that the petitioner met the plain language requirements of the judging 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), an evaluation of the significance of the 
petitioner's judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121, to determine if such 
Page 14 
evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. In 
th~e petitioner based her eligibility on four instances of . . for the Chinese Artists Society 
of_ and the five invitations to serve as a judge in his August 16,2010, 
letter. However, without evidence pre-dating the petition sets the petitioner apart from others 
in her field, such as evidence that she has served as a judge of acclaimed opera performers or of a 
national or international competition rather than aspiring students or amateurs, the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Cj, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 
(USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the "extraordinary ability" standard). 
The petitioner's claim to have made contributions of major significance rests almost entirely on 
recommendation letters. The letters submitted on behalf of the petitioner fail to reflect any original 
contributions of major significance made by the petitioner and their simple repetition of the statutory 
and regulatory requirements is insufficient to establish her national or international acclaim. See F edin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The petitioner did not demonstrate that she has performed in a leading or critical role for any 
organization or establishment. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that any of the claimed 
organizations have a distinguished reputation. This evidence is not representative of sustained national 
or international acclaim or of an alien who has attained the status as one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor, as it relates to performing in a leading or critical 
role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
In regard to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), while the petitioner submitted evidence of her 
performances. she failed to submit documentation of her commercial successes in the form of receipts 
or sales. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's performances are 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a Chinese opera 
performer, relies on a single membership with undocumented membership requirements, published 
material in publications that lack the caliber to meet the regulatory requirements, judging duties that fail 
to set her apart from others in her field, contributions that fail to demonstrate an impact on her field, and 
performing in roles that were neither leading nor critical in nature for organizations that she failed to 
show have a distinguished reputation. Moreover, the most persuasive evidence dates from several years 
prior to the filing of the petition and, thus, is not evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
in Canada, where she has lived since 1990. This evidence hardly distinguishes the petitioner from other 
Peking opera performers. 
Page 15 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an 
opera performer to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as an opera performer, especially several years prior to the 
filing date, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements currently set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.