dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: 
APR 14 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrunigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 IS3(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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(J)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
f 
Page 2 
employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
The petitIOner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 I 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. l The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
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). 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 argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Counsel also refers to several unpublished decisions by the 
AAO sustaining appeals in the classification sought. Counsel has furnished no evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. 
Further, while 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. In the instant matter, the petitioner's level of 
achievement is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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 --
1 According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on March 10. 2009 as an F-I nonimmigrant student. 
f 
Page 3 
(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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
uscrs 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 term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.S(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting 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 III the field, III 
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 performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(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 FJd 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? 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." ld. 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)." ld. 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 ofthe[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. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
2 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.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
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 Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 FJd 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on April 17, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a musician At the time of filing, the petitioner was pursuing a 
Doctor of Musical Arts petitioner earned an Associate of 
Arts degree from of Music degree from the University 
of _(2005), degree in Music Performance from_State 
University (2006). The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a Nover 
Music Theory and Composition, 
~~g that the petitioner "was the winner in viola performance of 
the highest award possible in the music 
division at As such, he performed in an outstanding Concert 
featuring the winners as soloists with our orchestra. ,,4 The record does not include documentary 
evidence indicating the eligibility requirements for the competition's entrants or the selection 
criteria for its winners. The petitioner states that the "competition is open to musician in the 
_area." October 2008 letter from 
Professor of Music, by the nf'titicm 
Annual Concerto Competition "highlights the most outstanding soloists 
_ rather than being "open to any musician in the _ as 
petitioner. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Nevertheless, the petitioner did not 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
is an education partnership 
_, and the University o~ 
Public Schools,_ 
Page 6 
submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his particular award. The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. The submitted documentation indicates that the 
petitioner's award from the 2002 Annual Concerto Competition 
reflects local or . . recognition music school rather than a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted recognition letters from Cultural Director for the 
Executive Director of the 
Jlrf,~tc\r of the Municipal a of 
Director of Cultural Promotion and Diffusion for the 
thanking the petitioner for his support and involvement with various activities. There 
is no evidence showing that these letters constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
I. Certificate stating: "The Prefecture of the District of the Present 
Recognition to [the petitioner] for his valuable contribution to culture, in favor of the 
development of the (2008); 
2. Certificate stating: General Commander of the 
and the Secretary of the Department of Culture congratulate [the petitioner] for his 
part~ at the 'First Conference of Artists During the 100th Year Anniversary of 
the _ of Music' and for his great contribution to the cultural 
development of the and the entire cOlmtry" 
3. Certificate stating: "Honorable _ .. in the name 
GC)Verlllllent confers the foregoing recognition to [the petitioner] 
. Quartet for his excellent artistic skills and his 
participatIOn at 20~ 
4. Certificate from the __ ' in in recognition 
of the petitioner's "outstanding participation and to Art and Culture" 
(1998); 
5. Certificate of Participation presented to the petitioner for his involvement in the IX 
International Music Festival in....-- (1998); 
6. Certificate of Participation pre~er for his involvement in the VI 
International Music Festival in (1996); 
7. Certificate of Participation pn~sente,d 
Festival "Solo Mozart" at the 
and 
involvement in the 
(1995); 
8. Certificate stating: "Prefecture of the Department of offers the present 
certificate to [the petitioner] at the International Soloist - Encounter of Musicians for 
his extraordinary activities that are reflected in his interpretations as a soloist in Viola 
and the Centenary Orchestra of the_ Conservatory of Music" (2007). 
Page 7 
Reco:gnition presented to the petitioner "for an outstanding perfonnance 
(2003). 
The preceding certificates (items 1 - 7) are local or regional honors rather than nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. There is no 
evidence showing that the preceding certificates are nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence, rather than simply acknowledgments of the petitioner's 
participation in cultural events and festivals. 
The petitioner submitted a February 26, 2007 letter from the Embassy of_ in_stating: 
The Embassy of the 
extends an invitation to offer concerts' 
* * * 
quartet, and 
March 17 to the 22. 
We have also received infonnation that all travel, lodging, food and representation costs 
will be paid by the University of_United States. 
This letter constitutes an invitation to perform rather than a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Counsel asserts in his March 30, 2009 letter that the petitioner won the 
Competition" in 1998, but the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence pnze or 
award. 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. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972». A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only 
where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner 
must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the 
reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 12, 2008 
letter Executive Director of the _ 
that (including the petitioner) of 
"participated" in the _International Chamber Music III 
further states""tli:iithe petitioner's "quartet was selected from over 150 applicants 
from all over the world to participate in the Section I of the competition, which is for string 
Page 8 
quartets, representing USA.,,5 [Emphasis added.] There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's quartet received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award at the 5th 
_International Chamber Music Competition & Festa. Rather, the letter from 
is simply an acknowledgment of the participation in the competition. 
Moreover, there is no documentation . I of the competition was open to 
established veteran musicians rather than being limited only to younger musicians ages 16 to 35. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of scholarships and graduate assistantships he 
received while attending _ State University. These scholarships and graduate 
assistantships represent financial support for the petitioner's graduate studies and music training 
rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. University study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. 
As such, academic scholarships and graduate assistantships cannot be considered prizes or 
awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for scholarships and 
graduate assistantships is limited to other students. Experienced professional musicians in the 
field do not apply for such educational funding. Finally, the petitioner did not submit evidence of 
the national or international recognition of his specific academic scholarships and graduate 
assistantships. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also includes an August 9, 2009 certificate from the 
_ Government of recognizing the petitioner for his work as a violist and his 
~nt of the culture from 2005 - 2009. The petitioner received this certificate 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. 
Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, this certificate from the _ Government of _is a local or regional 
honor rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
5 Infonnation about the 7m _ International Chamber Music Competition & Festa posted on the_ Chamber 
Music Foundation's website states: 
1. Eligibility 
Applicants for the Competition shall be ensembles of musicians of any nationality, whose members were 
born between May 18, 1975 and May 17, 1995 .... 
2. Duplicate Application 
An ensemble may apply to only one category: Section I, Section II or the Festa .... 
3. Reapplication 
Any ensemble that has previously won the first or gold prize in the_International Chamber Music 
Competition or Festa cannot apply for the same category. 
aweSSE,a on March 21, 2011, copy incorporated into the record 
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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an August 29, 2008 letter from Camp Director, _ 
_ Fine Arts the petitioner for serving as a . member" for the 2008 
Summer Camp. letter further states: "It is now time to begin planning for next 
summer. . .. Please dIrect employment questions you may have to . . . our Personnel 
Department .... Best wishes for a successful year in your 'real' job! We ... hope to see you 
again at camp in the future." The preceding letter is evidence of the petitioner's summer 
employment rather than documentation of his membership in an association in the field requiring 
outstanding achievement. There is no documentary evidence showing that the Fine 
Arts Camp requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted an October 18, 2008 letter from the American Viola Society (A VS) 
indicating that the petitioner holds "$21 Full-time Student Membership" in the A VS and 
"Chapter Membership" in the _ Viola Society (FVS). There is no evidence of the 
membership requirements (such as bylaws or rules of admission) for the AVS and the FVS 
showing that they require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualifY as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
Page 10 
particular locality but would qualifY as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers6 
The petitioner submitted an August 7, 2006 article in 
classical music guide) stating: 
Two of them once played together in _ but the members of the 
String Quartet - in residence at the_Music Festival and School 
came together in the United States when they were all attending the _in_ 
* * * 
weekly 
They began playing together right away - borrowing the name of their school for their 
ensemble - at the recommendation of a teacher, because "the school needed a quartet," 
_says. 
* * * 
~st year they received a full scholarship for graduate study at the University of 
_ where they are currently in residence. 
* * * 
The members o~ have always wanted to corne to the __ Music 
Festival and School], and this summer has reaped musical rewards for them, as they have 
worked extensively with director of 
as well as with members of visiting as 
quartets. They have also ... done master classes, received coachings, 
and kept up a rigorous six-hour-a-day practice schedule. 
They feel that it's vital for them to express the depth and breadth of their cultures in their 
music, and the" Quartet in particular made a tremendous impact on them earlier 
this summer. 
"Their concert changed our life, and showed us how to play, 
not believe their level." 
* * * 
"We could 
6 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 11 
Character and intensity are very import to the 
launch their career. 
members, too, as they 
This article only briefly mentions the petitioner and is primarily about the quartet 
in general. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the published 
material be "about the alien.,,7 Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation information) 
showing that equates to a professional or major trade publication or some other 
form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in entitled 
Pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3), any document containling fOf(~ign l<UllsU"i~" ""Ulllll";U 
uscrs shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English. The English language translation 
accompanying the preceding article was not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation. Further, the date and author were not identified as required by the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no evidence showing that _ 
_ qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a two-sentence article in entitled 
Quartet in _ The English language translation accompanying the preceding article was 
not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(3). Further, the 
date and author of the material were not identified as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing equates to a professional or major 
trade publication or some other form of major me,ma. 
The petitioner submitted an August 29, 2006 article in _ Quartet' 
from the United States in two luxurious concerts at the This article only 
briefly mentions the petitioner and is primarily about quartet in general. 
Further, the author of the material was not identified as required by the plain language of this 
criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that_qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. Finally, the English language 
translation accompanying the preceding article was not certified by the translator as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled Quartet in Concert," but the article's 
English language translation was incomplete not by the translator as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the name of the publication, the date of the material, and the 
author were not identified as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner submitted an article in_ (a free supplement from the government 
o~ entitled "The Symphony Orchestra of_and 4 connotes [sic] artists sold out in 
7 See, e.g, Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Page 12 
but the article's English language translation was incomplete and not certified 
by the translator as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). This article only briefly mentions the 
petitioner and is primarily about the concert in general. Further, the date and author of the 
material were not identified as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no 
evidence showing that _ equates to a professional or major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles in_dated August 29, 2006 and June IS, 1997. The English 
language translations accompanying the preceding articles were incomplete and not certified by the 
translator as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the articles' authors were not identified 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the two articles only briefly mention the 
petitioner and~rimarily about his music groups in general. Finally, there is no evidence 
showing that _qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in 2006, but the article only briefly 
mentions him. Further, the author was not as required by the plain 
language of this criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the preceding publication 
equates to a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. Finally, 
the English language translation accompanying the preceding article was incomplete and not 
certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted articles in_dated June S, 2008; October 19, 1997; and November 
21, 1999. The English language translations accompanying the preceding articles were incomplete 
and not certified by the translator as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the articles' 
authors were not identified as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no 
evidence showing that _ qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles in_ dated May 24, 2006; October 16, 1997; July 6, 2002; 
and November 21,1999. A fifth article in did not include its date as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). The English language translations accompanying the preceding articles were 
not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Further, the 
author of the preceding articles was not identified as required by the plain language of this 
criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that _ equates to a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an October 2, 2007 article in __ entitled "According to these 
musicians, leaving the country makes artists grow." The English language translation 
accompanying the preceding article was incomplete and not certified by the translator as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the material was not identified as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no evidence showing that_ 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
Page 13 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph identifying him in 
The plain language of this criterion requires "published material about the alien" 
including "the title, date and author of the material." The material does not meet these 
~ Further, there is no evidence showing that 
_ qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in the __ School of the Arts Fall 2004 newsletter 
stating: 
practiced with 
coached them to play Mendelssohn's String Quartet III 
Quartet. 
University in _ 
and [the petitioner], 
Symphony Orchestra. . . . _ 
minor, Opus 13 and Bartok's First 
This article only briefly mentions the petitioner and is primarily about the quartet 
in general. Further, the author of the article is not identified and there is no evidence showing that 
the preceding school newsletter equates to a professional or major trade publication or some other 
form of major media. 
fJ~'Hw'a~, S response 
Newspaper," preceding 
articles only briefly mention the petitioner and are primarily about the quartet in 
general. Further, the authors of the articles were not identified as required by the plain language 
of this criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the preceding publications qualify 
trade publications or other major media. Finally, the 2005 articles in • 
were unaccompanied by certified English language translations as 
U;;/;CIH1UlJ11 at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3). 
~ the petitioner submits an article entitled "[The petitioner] tocara en 
_ but the article was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the article's author was not 
identified as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no evidence showing that 
the article was published in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major 
media. 
The petitioner also submits November 19, 2008 and September 28, 2005 articles in _but 
the English language translations accompanying the articles were not certified by the translator 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the articles was not 
identified as required by this criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that _ 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
Page 14 
submission also includes an April 8, 2007 article in_ entitled 
in_ The article briefly mentions the petitioner and is primarily 
about quartet in general. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that. 
_qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
Finally, the English language translation accompanying the preceding article was not certified by 
the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submitted an April 10, 2007 online article entitled and 
_ organize concert of the String Quartet The article only briefly mentions 
the petitioner and is primarily about the concert in general. Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the article was published in a professional or major trade publication or 
some other form of major media. Moreover, the English language translation accompanying the 
article was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several reference letters praising his talent as a violist and discussing his 
activities. Talent and the ability to secure employment in one's field, however, are not necessarily 
indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance in the musical field. The record 
lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original artistic contributions that have 
significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
Past President, Board of Director's Member, and Director of Special Projects, 
Orchestra, states: 
[The petitioner] has been with Orchestra since the beginning of 
our 2008-2009 concert season 2008. To date, he has played 
all of our orchestra services, rehearsals and concerts, including 3 of our main stage Super 
Series Concerts, twenty-eight Young People's Concerts, several outdoor pops concerts 
and Focus Series Concerts. 
[The petitioner] won our Principal Viola position at our auditions in September 2008. 
* * * 
A delight to have in the orchestra, [the petitioner] has already demonstrated his ability to 
lead the viola section. He is also very conscientious in his effort to come to rehearsals 
extremely well prepared and show his ability to be part of the "team," both as a leader of 
his section and a contributor to keeping the artistic standards of the orchestra very high. 
Principal Flute, Orchestra, states: 
Page 15 
[The petitioner] joined the in August of 2008 as a Principal Viola 
upon being named as winner of a national audition for the position. His contributions to 
the orchestra thus far cannot be measured in words. He is consistently prepared, well­
disciplined, and is highly respected by and respectful of his fellow musicians. His 
leadership qualities in the viola section are outstanding; he is easy to follow, highly 
communicative, and sensitive to the musical goals of the conductor, while at the same 
time being extremely humble and approachable. 
JrCIIt"Lra. states: 
For the past two years of knowing [the petitioner], he has proven to be a highly acclaimed 
violist and an excellent colleague to work with. Playing together fulfilled my greatest 
expectations of a colleague. He is a very sensitive musician who always contributes 
greatly to everything he does. 
I consider [the petitioner's] playing a real contribution to whomever he works with. 
Principal Second Orchestra, states: 
interest in spreading his love of music and the viola to 
community. He has expressed a desire to participate in 
musical outreach programs to educate and entertain as many people as possible in the 
_area as well as any other place where opportunities may arise. 
pn:cedirlg references do not explain how the petitioner's contributions to the_ 
Orchestra were original, nor do they provide specific examples of how his 
impacted the field beyond his orchestra such that his work constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
a contribution consisting of work experience with a single organization or employer. 
Associate Professor of Conducting and Director of Orchestral Activities, 
_ State University, states: 
[The petitioner] is a doctoral candidate in music at the College of Music of the State 
University. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is an exceptionally talented viola performer who has been an asset to our 
program. In addition to performing in our flagship ensemble, 
Orchestra, [the petitioner] also serves as a graduate teaching assistant 
states: 
Page 16 
[The petitioner] studied music theory under my instruction 
from 200 \-2005. I enjoyed seeing 
and bounds under the study 
petitioner 1 played in numerous orchestral concerts during his tenure 
_ including many of our new music concerts. 
describe the petitioner's activities at their universities, but they do not 
nrrlvi,j" ",,,,,it,,, ex:ampl(!s of how the petitioner's work there has influenced the field at large. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work at_ State University or the 
University o~ equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Violinist, Orc:he~;tra, states: 
at th~ Festival in in July 2003. As the 
violinist in String Quartet, a group every day for two weeks, he 
displayed a mastery of ensemble playing. This was especially true in front of an audience. 
His playing captivated the public that summer, and his leadership in the Quartet inspired the 
other participants in the festival. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information from the 
_ Festival's website stating: 
The Festival offers aspiring young artists a unique opportunity to 
enhance their skills through the intensive study of chamber music with some of the 
world's leading concert artists. Each year, 20 pre-professional stringed instrumentalists 
and . . are selected to participate in the two-week Festival, hosted on the campus of 
University] . 
[Emphasis added.] 
While the petitioner benefited from the tutelage of violinist, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's studies at festival as a "pre-professional" 
instrumentalist constitute original contributions of major signitilCaIICe in the field. 
On appeal, couns~es that "being one of the few who are invited to participate" in music 
festivals (such as _ and ~ is a contribution of major significance in the field. The 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included an April 2, 2007 music program 
describing the petitioner's studies at the_ Music Festival as a member 
During the summer of 2006, the quartet was one of three ensembles selected worldwide to 
participate as a fellowship quartet at the Centre for Advanced Quartet Studies at _ 
Music Festival. The program offered nine weeks of intensive study devoted exclusively to 
quartet repertoire and performance practice. Instructors and coaches included members of 
the world's most prestigious string quartets: 
string quartets. 
Page 17 
We cannot conclude that undertaking a program of music study or receiving an invitation to 
participate in a music festival is indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. Counsel does not provide examples indicating how the petitioner's work at these festivals 
was "original" or how it specifically impacted others in the field. 
Assistant Professor of Flute, University of 
Music, states: 
I have know [sic] [the petitioner] since 2007 as a professional colleague at _Fine 
Arts Camp. We performed together in a Broad Cast [sic] Concert with the_String 
Quartet (2007), and in the Festival Orchestra and Festival Opera. [The petitioner] is a 
phenomenal musician, with a superb combination of musicality and technique. He is a 
much beloved teacher by his students at the_ Fine Arts Camp. 
of 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's work at this summer music camp equates to 
original contributions of maj or significance in the field. 
The preceding reference letters submitted by the petitioner discuss his talent as a violist, musical 
performances, activities with various organizations (such as teaching young musicians), and 
educational training, but they do not specify exactly what his original contributions in the field of 
music have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of 
major significance in his field. It is not enough to be talented and to have others attest to that 
talent. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must 
be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has 
earned the admiration of those with whom he has studied and worked, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that he has made original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other violists 
working in the field, nor does it show that the field has specifically changed as a result of his 
work. 
The opinions of experts in the field 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 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 evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a violist or music instructor who has 
Page 18 
made original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that 
the petitioner'S work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he has as a soloist in concerts 
with the _ National Symphony Orchestra, th~ 
the International Festival Orchestra in Orchestra, and the 
School of the Arts Symphony The petitioner's documentation also 
showing that he was the _Cultural Ambassador with the 
Orchestra at the _Concert in November 1999 at _ Center. 
petitioner's evidence meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted reference letters and other documentation . that he performed as a 
principal violist for the_National Symphony Orchestra, Conservatory of Music 
Orchestra the_ Symphony of the Arts 
SYlnplllOTlY Orchestra, University Symphony Orchestra and the_ 
Orchestra. The petitioner also submitted with the 
String Quartet of the __ School of the Arts. In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a May 13, 2009 letter from General 
Manager and Principal Hom, Orchestra, stating: 
In [the petitioner's] role as Principal Violist, he is considered a Principal Musician in the 
"inner circle" of string players that includes the Concertmaster, Principal Second Violin, 
Principal Viola, Principal Cello and Principal Contra-bass. As Principal of the viola section 
in the orchestra, [ the petitioner] oversees the artistic integrity of the entire viola section, as 
many as ten fellow musicians in their preparation, rehearsal and performance of orchestral 
repertoire. 
* * * 
In addition to his role in the orchestra, [the petitioner] is an integral member ofth~ 
String Quartet which has performed to critical acclaim as a featured ensemble 
The record, however, does not include documentary evidence of the String 
Quartet's "critical acclaim." As previously discussed, going on 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. While the petitioner's role for the preceding 
orchestras and quartets appears to be leading or critical, there is no evidence showing that they have 
, 
Page 19 
a distinguished reputation when compared to other symphony orchestras and 
1mitte,cl documentation indentifYing the 
string quartets as "prestigious string quartets. 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submitted event programs and compact disc recordings from his concerts, but there is 
no evidence in the form of sales or receipts showing that his concerts or music recordings were 
commercially successful. In his May 13, 2009 letter submitted in response to the director's request 
for states: 
As is the case with most professional orchestras, repertoire and featured soloists are selected 
as far as eighteen months in advance of the dates of the concerts. Thus, [the petitioner 1 has 
not yet served in the capacity as a featured soloist. That said, there is no doubt that [the 
petitioner 1 will be asked to serve in that capacity in future seasons .... 
* * * 
The petitioner's appointment as Principal Violist with crucial to 
the artistic development of the orchestra .... As the orchestra has grown artistically, ticket 
sales (subscriptions) have also grown significantly in the 2008/09 season, a trend that is 
expected to continue in the 2009/10 season. 
As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of 
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. In this instance, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner himself achieved commercial successes or significantly impacted the 
ticket sales of the Orlando Philharmonic as of the petition's April 17, 2009 filing date. 
8 For comparison, some examples of orchestras with distinguished reputations include the Berlin Philharmonic, 
London Symphony Orchestra, Vienna Philhannonic, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Boston Symphony 
Orchestra, and the New York Philhannonic. See article entitled "Chicago Symphony Tops U.S. Orchestras" at 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?%20storyld~97291390, accessed on March 25, 201 I, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
• 
Page 20 
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 performed in concerts 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 performances, or resulted in greater audiences than 
other similar performances that did not feature him. Further, there is no evidence showing, for 
example, that the petitioner's musical recordings have generated substantial national or 
international sales. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitIOner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 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." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii), (v), (vii), (viii), and (x). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the petitioner's selection 
for training fellowships at the Aspen and Mimir music festivals, we note that awards, 
scholarships, and fellowships limited to graduate students or young musicians do not establish 
that the petitioner is one of the very few at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Experienced professional instrumentalists do not compete for graduate scholarships and training 
fellowships. Further, we note that the petitioner's string quartet participated in Section I of the 
competition at 5th Osaka International Chamber Music Competition & Festa, a competitive 
section limited to young musicians ages 16 to 35. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. 
Matter a/Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 9 Likewise, it 
9 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16,1995), the court stated: 
• 
Page 21 
does not follow that receipt of an award which excludes veteran artists and professionals in the field 
from consideration should necessarily qualifY a musician for an extraordinary ability employment­
based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(iii), the record of proceeding 
reflects uncertified translations, partial translations, and foreign language documents without any 
English translations. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with the basic regulatory 
requirements such as providing the author of the published material as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, there is no evidence demonstrating that the newspapers 
in which the material was published qualify as major trade publications or other major media. 
We cannot ignore that many of the articles refer to the petitioner as a "young musical talent" or 
musician in training rather than an established professional violist. For example, the August 7, 
2006 article in specifically refers t~members as being in a stage in 
their development launch their career." The submitted published material is not 
indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Further, although the petitioner has been studying and playing in 
the United States since the early 2000s, there is no evidence indicating that he has been the 
subject of major media coverage in this country. The statute and regulations require the petitioner 
to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner demonstrated the display of his work at artistic exhibitions pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to 
establish the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. Although the petitioner 
established that he has performed as a soloist with several symphony orchestras, we note that the 
submitted evidence fails to demonstrate a level of distinction that sets the petitioner among "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field." 
In this matter, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating petitioner's sustained national 
or international acclaim as a violist or music instructor. The conclusion we reach by considering 
the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in 
this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
• 
Page 22 
We note that the petitioner's references' credentials are more impressive. For example, • 
_ is a Professor of Music at the _ School of the Arts. The petitioner submitted 
an online copy which states: 
SYlmphorlY Orchestra ....• 
Opera Orchestra .... From 
Synlph'Jny, and 
the United States .... Since 2005, he has been a frequent guest principal violist with the 
Philharmonic . . .. He has master classes at conservatories in 
at universities throughout the United 
. such as 
He also 
letter states: 
I am a violinist with the _ SYlmphQ!!y Urchlestra with that ensemble I perform 
I have also served as a roughly 125 concerts a year in the 
concertmaster for the 
am on the violin faculty at 
Festivalof_ 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far 
above the level he has attained. The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals 
progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. In this case, the petitioner has not 
established that his achievements at the time of filing the petition were commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim as a violist or music teacher, or that he was among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
Page 23 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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, 
afrd, 345 F.3d at 683; see a/so So/tane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.