dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifyino ~"ta ieJeted to 
!,rev~nt Ck .. .i ~:iiWarrantea 
mv8SlOll of personal privaC) 
l'UBtTC COpy 
u.s. 1)C()Urtmcnl of Homeland ~ccurit~' 
U.S, Cili/cnship and Irnmigl,!110n SL'n'ices 
Administrative APPL'<lI.-. ()fficL' (1\1\0) 
20 MaSS<ll'hu<,ells Av,' .. N.'\l" tvlS 2()!)O 
Washinillon. DC 2():"2()-2(PJ(I 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
JAN 232012 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 thc office that originally decided your casco Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that ollice. 
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. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Ollice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, California Service Center. On further review of the record, the director issued a notice of 
intent to revoke the approval of the petition (NOIR). The director, Nebraska Service Center, issued 
a second NOIR after determining that the initial NOIR did not adequately articulate the proposed 
grounds for revocation. [n a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director ultimately revoked the 
approval of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140). The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1155, states, in pertinent 
part, that the Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good 
and suf1icient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the 
Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a 
visa petition is properly issued for "good and suf1icient cause" where the evidence 
of record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would 
warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his 
burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of 
record at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation 
submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would 
warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Eslime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 
(BIA 1987». 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. ld. The approval of a visa 
petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a 
preliminary step in the visa application process. ld. at 589. The beneficiary is not, by mere 
approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. ld. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)( 1 )(A). The director determined that the 
petitioner was prohibited from approval of the petition pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1154(c) because she attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of 
evading the immigration laws. The director also determined that the petitioner had not established 
the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1 154(c), states: 
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) no petition shall be approved if 
(1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an 
Page 3 
immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United 
States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by 
reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered 
into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or (2) the Attorney General 
has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage 
for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(I)(ii) states: 
Fralldulent marriage prohihition. Section 204(c) of the Act prohihits the 
approval of a visa petition filed on behalf of an alien who has attempted or 
conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration 
laws. The director will deny a petition for immigrant visa classification filed on 
behalf of any alien for whom there is substantial and probative evidence of such 
an attempt or conspiracy, regardless of whether that alien received a benefit 
through the attempt or conspiracy. Although it is not necessary that the alien have 
been convicted of, or even prosecuted for, the attempt or conspiracy, the evidence 
of the attempt or conspiracy must be contained in the alien's file. 
The record married the petitioner on November 12, IYY8 in San 
Diego, California. 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on November 24, 
IYY8, seeking to classify the petitioner as a spouse of a United to section 
201(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1151(b). On March 21, 2001, pleaded guilty to 
naturalization fraud and immigration fraud in United States making false 
misrepresentations regarding a marriage to his previous a United States 
citizen. On July 23, 2001, the aded guilty to misprision of a felony based on her 
knowledge and concealment of scheme to false~s U.S. citizenship. More 
specifically, the petitioner signed a false lease submitted by _ to 
and Naturalization Service (INS) misrepresenting that he was residing with 
petitioner also provided false information regarding her address from to 
lYY8 on her Form G-325A, Biographic Information that she submitted to INS in support of her 
Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence of Adjust Status filed on November 
24, 1998. On June 14, 2001, the petitioner requested that her Form 1-485 application be 
withdrawn. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(15) provides: "Withdrawal ... shall not itself 
affect the new proceeding; hut the filct.l· and circumstances surrounding the prior application or 
petition shall otherwise he material to the new application or petition." (Emphasis added.) 
The "Factual Basis" s signed Plea Agreement states: 
Defendant,_ was born in Jordan and was a Jordanian citizen. He entered 
the United States as a visitor. On October IY, 1993, he married 
Huntley filed an immediate relative visa petition (form 1-130) on 
on November 29, IY93. The couple was interviewed by an INS eXarrtmCI 
February 14, 1994. At the conclusion of the interview, the visa petItton was 
approved and Khauli's adjustment of status application (form 1-485) was granted. 
Page 4 
As a result, _ was made a resident alien, Since they _ied less than 
two years before resident alien status was granted, status was 
conditional. Unless the couple filed a joint petition to remove that condition 
(form 1-751) 90 days before the second anniversary of _ becoming a 
resident alien, the resident alien status would terminate. 
_ and_ filed a timely joint petition in January 1996.~tion was 
granted in February 1996 and the condition was removed trom _ resident 
alien status. 
In June 1997, _filed a [sic] application for naturalization (form N-4(0) with 
the INS Houston District Office. _requested naturalization under the 
special provision for aliens living in marital union with their United States citizen 
spouses for the three years prior to their application. This provision allows the 
alien to apply for naturalization after 3 years as a resident alien instead of waiting 
for after 5 years of resident alien status. 
On June 10, 1 
Adjudication ULlIClOQ 
for naturalization by 
After being placed under 
was 
questions on the N-400 
and. lived with him 
se. never lived with 
returned to her family home in Reno, Nevada in January 1997. Consequently, 
_was ineligible for naturalization because he was not living in marital union 
with his United States citizen spouse. 
~ then signed the NAOO before the examiner swearing that the contents of 
the application w~c. The application was granted at the conclusion of the 
examination and_ was scheduled for a Naturalization Oath Ceremony on 
July 24, I as a United States citizen 
and received 
Also, on July 24, submitted a "will call" application for a 
,'p,''''''''"'" to support this 
picked up his United 
United States passport. He used the 
passport application. On or about July 27, 1 
States passport. 
_filed a petition seeking a divorce from 
The divorce became final on October 13, 1998 and 
on November 12, 1998. 
on August 13, 1998, 
married [the petitioner] 
The "Factual Basis" of the petitioner's signed Plea Agreement states: 
On June 10, 1 
Adjudication Ofl[ic,~r 
for naturalization by INS District 
After being placed under oath,_ 
Page 5 
was asked the questions on the N-400 form. to 
Sabrina Huntley and that she lived with him In 
support of this statement, he submitted a lease signed by 
. which indicated that [the petitioner] owned the 
she leased the premises to defendant 
statement was false. The premises was, in fact, leased and 
by defendant, [the petitioner] and def~. Consequently, 
did not lived [sic] in marital.' . h _ during the three years 
prior to his naturalization. Therefore was ineligible for naturalization 
because he was not living in marital union with his United States citizen spouse 
for the required period. 
then signed the N-400 swearing that the contents of the application were 
application was granted at the conclusion of the examination and 
scheduled for a Naturalization Oath Ceremony on July 24, 1998. He 
. a United States citizen and received 
filed a petition seek~vorce 
which became final on October 13, 1998. _ then 
petitioner], on November 12, 1998. He then filed an 
immediate relative visa petition (form 1-130) on behalf of defendant, [the 
petitioner], along with an application to adjust her immigration status to resident 
alien (form 1-485). In support of the application to adjust her status, defendant, 
[the petitioner], submitted a Biographic Information form (form G-325A). On 
this form, defendant, [the petitioner], indicated she lived in Toronto, Ontario, 
Canada during the period form [sic] November 1997 to October 1998. This 
lived with defendant _ at 
that time. 
The purpose of this false statement on the G-325A was to conceal defendant 
Khauli's naturalization fraud from detection by the INS. If the Service knew that 
Payne and Khauli were living together instead of _ living with his United 
States citizen spouse, he would have been ineligible for naturalization at the time 
he received his citizenship. 
On February 9, 2002, the District Director of the San Diego District Office denied the Form 1_ 
130 petition filed in the petitioner's behalf by_ The director's notice of denial stated: 
On March 21, 2001, your received a final order 
vacating his July 24, 1998 order of admission to United States citizenship. This 
final order cancelled his Certificate of Naturalization, and any rights, privileges, 
and advantages that this status conveyed. Your husband was subsequently 
deported from the United States on April 2, 2001. 
Page 6 
In view of the 
between 
denied. 
is no longer a petitionable relationship 
Therefore, your petition is hereby 
The AAO notes that the district director did not find that the petitioner had attempted or 
conspired to enter into a marriage with_ for the purpose of evading the immigration 
laws. While the petitioner's misrepresentation of residence information on her signed Form G-
325A dated November 17, 1998 indicates that she sought to procure a benefit provided under the 
Act through willful of a material fact, the evidence of record does not establish 
that her marriage was entered into fraudulently with the intent to evade the 
immigration laws. 
A decision regarding section 204(c) of the Act is for the district director to make in prior collateral 
proceedings. He should reach his own independent conclusion based the evidence actually before 
him. Matter of Rahmati, 16 I&N Dec. 538 (BIA 1978); Matter of F-, 9 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 1972). 
A finding that section 204(c) of the Act docs apply to an alien must be based on evidence that is 
substantial and probative. Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BlA 1990); Matter of Agdiallo({y, 
16 I&N Dec. 545 (BIA 1978); Maller of '"a Grolla, 14 I&N Dec. I]() (BIA 1972). Once the 
Service has met this initial requirement, the burden shifts back to the petitioner, as part of his burden 
of proof in visa petition or revocation proceedings, to rebut the Government's evidence ,md 
establish that the prior marriage was bona fide and that section 204(c) of the Act should not apply. 
Matter of Kahy, 19 I&N Dec. 803 (BiA 198tl). 
In the present matter, the the evidence of record does not support a finding that 
the petitioner's marriage to was a fraudulent or "sham" marriage. In addition, the 
record does not contain substantial and probative of a marriage that was entered 
into for the sole purpose of evading the immigration laws. Therefore, the AAO withdraws the 
finding of the service center director regarding the issue of section 204(c) of the Act. However, 
the petitioner's willful material misrepresentation of her residence information on the Form G-
325A should be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue.' 
Regarding the service center director's determination as it relates to the petitioner's eligibility under 
section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act, 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)(I)(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. 
J The immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien inadmissible. Sec Matter of 0, g I&N 
Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead. the alien may he found inadmissible at a later date when she subsequently applies for 
admission into the United States or applies for adjustment of status to permanent resident status. See secli(lllS 212(<1) 
and 245(a) of 'he Act. K U.S.c. §§ 11H2(,,) and t255(a). 
Page 7 
8 CF.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 asserts that the petitioner is at the top of her field and that the evidence shows 
she meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For 
the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the service center director's decision to revoke 
the approval of the 1-140 petition. 
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 
(iii) the alicn'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. 723101" Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 608<)7, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The term "cxtraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requircs 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; 
Page 8 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field lor 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 classilication 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 111 the lield. 111 
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 officc 
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. Kazariall v. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20lU). 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 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the ;\;\0 had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at H C.f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
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)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 9204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence. USCIS dctennines 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 Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. a/Td, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DO!, 381 F.3d 
at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 1, 2001, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a musician (classical nutist) and educator. The petitioner received her 
Doctor of Musical Arts degree from Rice University in 1996. At the time of filing, the petitioner 
was working as a "Lecturer and studio instructor in the areas of flute and music history" at San 
Diego State University (SDSU) School of Music and Dance. 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 or lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
stating: 
-' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussi:U in this 
decision. 
Page 10 
On behalf of the Graduate Council and upon the recommendation of the Shepherd 
School of Music, I am pleased to offer you admission to the Doctor of Musical 
Arts program as a full-time student, beginning in the fall semester 1986, 
* '" :k 
In addition to your admission, you are also being offered a Scholarship which will 
provide all of the $4,400 tuition for the year, . .. Please note that continuance 
past 1986-87 is dependent upon satisfactory performance and the availability of 
funds. 
The petitioner also submitted a July II, 1986 letter addressed to her from 
Dean, Shepherd School of Music, Rice University, stating: 
I am pleased to write to let you know that the Financial Assistance Committee of 
the Shepherd School has named you to receive a Scholarship as described below 
in the Shepherd School for the 1986-1987 academic year. This scholarship award 
is made for the purpose of enabling you to further your education .... 
'" * * 
Scholarship: This is to reaffirm the Graduate Studies offer of financial aid for 
1986-1987. Tuition remission in the amount of $4400, which will be applied 
toward you tuition and fees, one-half in each semester. 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships do not constitute prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field 
of endeavor. Moreover, competition for university scholarships is limited to other students 
seeking financial aid and tuition assistance. Experienced professionals in the field who have 
already completed their education do not seek such scholarships. In this instance, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's Rice University scholarship was 
recognized beyond the university and therefore commensurate with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner's initial submission also included a letter from 
virtuoso flute player from Northern Ireland, stating: 
a renowned 
[The petitioner] played for me some nine years ago in a class I was conducting in 
Aspen, Colorado. . .. In addition to playing in my Lucerne, Switzerland class in 
1991, last year she won a place in a competition to play for me again in a class in 
Washington, DC, and again she stood out amongst some exceptionally fine 
players. 
In response to the director's NOIR. the petitioner submitted a July 7, 2009 letter r 
stating: 
Page 11 
Because I do not teach private lessons, most learning takes place in the form of 
master classes or seminars. which interested entrants, must compete to win a place 
or be invited. 
[The petitioner] won a place in my Aspen Music Festival master class in 19S1) and 
she later attended my International Flute Master class in Switzerland in 1l)90 
where we shared our association of both having had the precious gift of being 
taught by Marcel Moyse. In 1996 she won another competition to play for me in 
my Washington, DC class and we have had a professional relationship ever since. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the 
petitioner's receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor.'· In this instance, the petitioner did not did not submit documentary 
evidence of the "prizes or awards" won by the petitioner in 1989, 1990, or 1996. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matta oj" Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 15S, 165 (Comm·r 19lJS) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Crafi 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 )(1). 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 docs 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). The letter of support from Sir Galway does not comply with the 
preceding regulatory requirements. Regardless, the AAO notes that an invitation to attend a 
master class constitutes selection for advanced musical training rather than receipt of a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award in the field. Further, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence of the national or international recoRnilion of her selection, such as national or widespread 
local coverage of her selection in professional or general media. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally 
or internationally recoRnized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element 
of this criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's selection 
for advanced musical training sessions was recognized beyond the class organizer and therefore 
commensurate with her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's memhership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sougill, which require OlliS tanding achievements of their 
memhers, as judged hy rec()Rnized nalional or international experts ill their 
diSCiplines or fields. 
Page 12 
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 documentation indicating that she is a member of the Marcel Moyse 
Society, the San Diego Flute Guild, the Society of Pi Kappa Lambda, and the Houston 
Professional Musicians Association. There is no documentary evidence (such as bylaws or rules 
of admission) showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's lield. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material abolll the alien ill 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. 
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 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.' 
section of I 
sentences mentioning the petitioner and the author of the article was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the local advertising supplement to the HOllston Chronicle qualifies as a form of major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted a February 2 L 1998 "News Release" prepared by the "Oflice of 
Community and Resource Development" at Houston Community College announcing a taculty 
concert including the petitioner. According to the petitioner's resume, the petitioner worked at 
Houston Community College as an Adjunct Professor of Flute at that time. A news release is a 
written communication directed at the news media for the purpose of announcing information 
4 Even with nationally-circulated ncw .... rapers, cOI1...;iucratiol1 must be given to the placement of the article. for 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Fost, hut in a section that is distrihuted only in P{!irfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot :-;crvc 10 spread an individual's reputation olltside of that coumy. 
Page 13 
claimed as having news value rather than ··published material ... in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media," The AAO cannot conclude that a press release, which is not the 
result of independent media reportage and which is sent to journalists in order to encourage them 
to develop articles on a subject, meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the Winter 1984 issue of Vihrations, a newsletter of the 
Community Music Center of Boston. The newsletter lists the petitioner's name among more than 
thirty staff members and faculty of the Community Music Center of Boston, but the newsletter does 
not include any articles about the petitioner. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show arc not about the actor). Further, there is no evidence showing that this 
institutional newsletter qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness­
related contrihlLl iollS of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several reference letters praising her talent as a flutist and discussing her 
activities in the field, training, education, and teaching positions. 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 her field. 
initial letter states: "[The petitioner] has established herself as a first rate player 
and educator, highly thought of by her colleagues. She has a spark of 0 ity among 
educators, which is hard to find in this overcrowded profession." praises the 
petitioner's skills as a flute player and music teacher, but he does not provides specific examples 
of how the petitioner's original work has impacted the field beyond her immediate employers 
such that her work rises to the level of artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
[The petitioner] was selected for her position as Lecturer and studio instructor in 
the areas of flute and music history because of her superb academic background 
and demonstration of extraordinary talents as a performer. 
She has been active as a performer, serving as a role model for our students and 
bringing performance expertise to her studio. Her specialty is the French Moyse 
School of Flute Playing which she expertly incorporates with the American 
school of playing. 
Page 14 
discusses the petitioner's activities at SDSU, but he does not provide specific 
the petitioner's work there has influenced the field at large, There is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work at SDSU equates to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
In her initial letter Professor of Flute and Chamber Music, Rice University, states: 
[The petitioner] studied flute with me during the 1983-84 academic year while 
completing her master's degree at Boston University. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is one of the most gifted musicians I have ever had the pleasure to 
coach during 25 years of college teaching, After her master's recitaL on which 
she gave a truly memorable performance of Debussy's sonata for tlute, viola and 
harp, I told [the petitioner] that I would gladly have paid a high admission fee to 
have heard her recital. She is also one of the most imaginative and dedicated 
musicians I have taught, always seeking new or different ways of expressing her 
musical ideas. 
One of [the petitioner's] greatest strengths as a tlutist is her unusually broad 
spectrum of tone colors, which she uses with originality, Her stage presence 
exudes confidence and musical integrity, and she invariably brings a distinctly 
personal message to her audience. She also possesses a rich artistic intelligence, 
excellent verbal communication skills, and the ability to express herself very 
well in writing. I have read portions of her doctoral thesis (Colltemporary 
Canadiall Fill/e Repertoire: All Allalysis of Selected Works and Catalugue of 
Selected Genres) and am struck by her thoroughness and creativity in treating 
historical and analytical issues. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. tl CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. 
Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of 
major significance, USCIS clearly docs not view the two as being interchangeable. Publication 
and presentations are not sufficient evidence under tl C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "major significance" Kazariall v. USCIS, 580 F3d 1030, 1036 (9th CiT. 2(09) 
a/I'd in part 596 E3d 1115 (9th CiT. 2(10), In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that 
the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of 
major significance. 590 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every scholarly article is 
an original contribution of major significance in the field; rather, the petitioner must document the 
actual impact of her article. In the present matter, the petitioner failed to submit a citation history or 
other documentary evidence showing that her doctoral thesis is majorly significant to her field. 
_ continues: 
Page 15 
[The petitioner] has had a wide range of teaching experience in the Boston area, at 
Aspen and in Houston. I am particularly impressed by the outreach she has done 
in the greater Houston arca, where she has directed the wind at the 
Houston Conservatory, served 
and was founder/director of Pilgrim Fine Arts Academy of Music. She has been 
highly active in the Houston Flute Club, has performed with a faculty woodwind 
quintet, presents solo recitals, and champions Canadian contemporary music in a 
flute and piano duo which she founded. She is very well respected as a 
pedagogue; her students have continually distinguished themselves in state and 
!.EE;IUlllal competitions and are visible in all three local youth orchestras. 
comments that the petitioner was the "founder/director of Pilgrim Fine Arts Academy 
of Musie," but there is no evidence documenting the number of students enrolled in the academy, 
its profitability, its distinguished reputation, or the success of its students. The petitioner has not 
established that founding a local organization that offers private music lessons and teaching 
students who distinguish themselves in state or regional competitions (rather than in national or 
international competitions) constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
[The petitioner's J varied professional experiences of over 20 years have been 
honed through a hard working and diplomatic personality. These experiences 
include: private teaching, ensemhle and solo performing, various teaching 
positions in American Music Schools and Academies such as: The Community 
Music School of Boston, both South and North Shore Conservatories of Boston, 
The Aspen Music School, Houston Independent School Districts, The Houston 
Music School and The Houston Conservatory of Music. 
Most outstanding and to her credit has been the creation and growth of the 
Houston Conservatory's Chamber Musie Program for all levels and Flute Choir 
Program. Through this ensemble, the HCM has showcased selected talented 
students from Junior and Senior High school levels in several Houston performing 
venues. Moreover, [the petitioner's] Flute Program boasts a Flute Camp for all 
levels of study. In addition to her duties as [the petitioner] is 
qualified to teach Chamber Music, Music History and Baroque Flute. She has 
interviewed with the Toronto Conservatory of Music to glean ideas for HCM's 
expansion and uses several of their theory manuals to create her own theory 
programs here at HCM. These programs include Beginner and Intermediate 
Theory and a special course designed for ages 4-9, which combine music, art and 
motion. 
Among her recent proposals for expanding the Conservatory's enrollment and 
revenue base for the fall semester is the addition of an Adult Flute Choir, 
weekend Flute Master Classes in collaboration with Houston Symphony flutists, 
Page 16 
hosting a Flute Concerto Competition and an array of weekend Master Classes for 
various high school compulsory competitions. 
'" 
Overall, [the petitioner] has been a valuable asset to the conservatory, helping to 
increase its revenue base, expand enrollment, while adding a fresh energetic 
atmosphere to the life of the conservatory. 
While the petitioner'S work at the Houston Conservatory of Music was important to its Chamber 
Music Program, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that her work was recognized 
beyond the local Houston community such that her work constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) 
requires that the petitioner's artistic contributions be "of major significance in the lield" rather 
than limited to a particular music institution, locality. or employer. 
Director, Community Music Center of Boston, states: 
have been quite pleased to have [the petitioner] as a member of the faculty. 
Besides being a fine teacher. she is trained in the French style of solo and 
chamber flutc performance. This school of training is not well represented in the 
States. It is rare to find a musician like [the petitioner] who is not only proficient 
in this technique but also a competent teacher to our students. Her continued 
association to the Center, compliments its educative mission and enhances the 
service it provides as Boston's oldest music school. 
* * :;< 
study with the likes of 
, ultimately brought her to Boston 
at University is revealed by the 
perhaps the only surviving authority on the French style, 
joined the brought her there as his private student, These credentials 
clearly establish [the petitioner] as a musician of distinguished merit and ability. 
It is [the petitioner's] unusually diverse background that makes her a unique 
teacher and one whom I would like to see remain on the facuity for a long time. 
In my opinion it is her studies with some of the greatest flutists of our time that 
give her distinguished merit as a performCf and teacher. Her proficiency in the 
French style of solo playing are unique in American Music Educational circles. 
She brings traditional and different interpretive concepts of flute literature to her 
students than do other teachers schooled in the more traditional American 
Orchestral approach, although she is well qualified in teaching this also. 
Page 17 
both comment on the unique nature of the petitioner's training in 
performance, Assuming the petitioner's music skills are unique, 
the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In 
fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Maller olNew & N. 
Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). The reference letters from do not 
provide examples indicating how the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Professor Emeritus, Shepherd School of Music, Rice University, states: 
[The petitioner] is well known to me as a skilled flutist of exceptional tonal 
quality, musicality and charm. She has had considerable professional experience 
as a recitalist, Chamber Music player and Orchestral flutist and demonstrates as 
well a natural empathy as a teacher. She is ambitious and thorough in pursuit of 
excellence and I can with confidence recommend her as a musician and attractive 
personali ty. 
The preceding references do not explain how the petitioner's contributions as a flutist or teacher 
were original, nor do they provide specific examples of how her contributions have impacted the 
field beyond her employers and educational institutions such that her work constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. It is not enough to be talented and to have others 
attest to that talent. An alien must have demonstrahly impacted her 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 hut of "major significance" in the field. The phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and. thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. t;astric/z 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted ill APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619,626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15,20(3). Thus, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that 
the reference letters initially submitted by the petitioner did not meet the elements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
In response to the director's NOIR, the petitioner submitted additional letters of support from her 
personal and professional contacts. 
In his second letter,_ states: 
No better display of [the petitioner's) professionalism could be shown than that at 
the National Flute Association convention back in 1997, where I witnessed her 
demonstration of my tone development exercises, which flutists now use the 
world over. 
As well as teaching 
teacher, the late, great 
during the summers in 
learned di~d my former 
as well as ~ (her teacher 
France), [the petitioner) is also certified to 
Page 18 
teach my Galway Method of Flute playing as well. This is something I would 
only allow a professional who is outstanding in their field to do, and whom I feel 
confident can deliver my Methodology in the same manner as I would wish it to 
be portrayed. 
comments that the petitioner publi~ated 
that she learned teaching methods from ~nd 
that she is certified to teach the Galway Method of Flute playing. 
evidence indicating that the petitioner has developed comparable original teaching 
methodologies 0 lizi down from her previous .. .. . .. 
teachers such as 
mues: 
[The petitioner] and my professional paths crossed again in 2003, when I came to 
San Diego to give a solo recital at Symphony Towers. At the time, she was still 
teaching flute at San Diego State and at several other area music colleges .... 
She had invited me to perform and give a class at San Diego State University 
where she teaches, but a last minute change in my tour schedule meant the need to 
take an carlier fl ight, so we set another date. 
During her term as president of the San Diego Flute Guild, [the petitioner] hosted 
whieh is an internationally recognized musical ~ds 
flutists of all levels, organized and operated by my wif~ a 
recognized international tlutist in her own right. [The petitioner] rehearsed the 
San Diego Chapter students and conducted the tlute choir concert, of which I was 
a member, before I performed a solo recital that evening. 
The preceding paragraphs in _ letter discuss activities of the petitioner that post-date 
the petition's filing date. A ~owever, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Maller o(Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 4lJ (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's activities alier March I. 2001 in this 
proceeding. 
[The petitioner] kept me apprised of her professional career ... and when I joined 
the faculty at Rice University in 1997 she was coincidentally living and teaching 
in Houston, having earned a doctorate at Rice and decided to remain in Houston 
to continue teaching. We continued to maintain a collegial relationship during 
that time; in the greater Houston area she was known as an outstanding teacher. 
Her students won coveted positions in the Houston Youth Symphony, and even a 
concerto competition sponsored by the orchestra. Since Houston is the fourth 
Page 19 
largest city in our country and boasts a very large talent pool, this is an obvious 
example of her effectiveness as a pedagogue. 
Through the years I have valued our collegial relationship and 
numerous students to [the petitioner]. One student whom we shared 
••• f- is now associate principal flutist of the Cleveland Orchestra, one of the 
top five orchestras in the United States. [The petitioner's] former students have 
o.;U1I1IJ1ClC g.racluare studies at such renowned musical institutions as the 
These 
usiciaills are a part [the petitioner's] legacy as an extraordinary 
talent who has chosen to pass along her breadth and depth of musical knowledge 
through teaching career. 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the petitioner's original 
instructional techniques have significantly impacted the field beyond the pupils under her 
immediate tutelage. As previously discussed, contributions limited to the institutions where the 
petitioner taught do not equate to original contributions of major significance to the field as a 
whole. Further, the petitioner has not established that teaching students who distinguished 
themselves in the Houston or San Diego areas (rather than in national or international music 
competitions) constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
while the petitioner may have previously taught the associate principal tlutist of the Cleveland 
Orchestra and other students who have gone on to complete their graduate studies, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that their success was primarily attributable to the 
petitioner or that her instructional methodologies equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
further states: 
To offer background on the unrqueness and importance of [the petitioner's] 
pedagogy, flutists of her generation, approximately 15 years younger than I, 
represent the last direct living link to the tradition and teachings of the 20th 
century French pedagogues who were responsible for our instrument becoming as 
respected a solo instrument as the violin, piano, and cello have been for the past 
several centuries. The pioneers in passing a ition were [the 
petitioner's] and my teachers, the aforementioned and lean-Pierre 
Rampal, and it is critical that their teachings be passed on in the oral tradition. 
As previously discussed, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner has developed original 
pioneering teaching methodologies, as opposed to the methodologies passed down to her from her 
own tutelage as a tlutist. Moreover, the issue of whether similarly-trained musicians are available 
in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. New York State 
Dep '( olTramp., 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Page 20 
continues: 
In addition to her immense contribution through pedagogy, [the petitioner) is 
making an invaluable contribution to the international 
another way. Currently she is undertaking a project with 
~, translate, and re-record over 100 audio tapes of sessions with 
_ who coached chamber music at the world renowned Marlboro 
Festival in Vermont for many years i~on to teaching the flute. These 
compact discs will be deposited with the _ Society Library in the New York 
Public Library for future international use and study. 
* * 
In addition she has served the flute c~n the greater S~a by 
becoming president of the San Diego _ Events of the _ have 
been publicized not only statewide but also nationally in flute publications. 
The preceding statements in letter discuss activities of the petitioner that post-date 
the petition's filing date. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 4Y. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's activities after March I, 2001 in this 
proceeding. 
[The petitioner] and I 
legendary French flutist, 
was simultaneously stu 
legendary figure in the flute world. I was present in 
Brattleboro, Vermont when [the petitioner] had her 
played beautifully and clearly had an extraordinary musical gift. 
* :~ * 
flute with the 
rJ 
a 
111 
In lY88, I began spearheading efforts to establish Advisory 
Board. of this Board was himsel f a 
student Over the years I Y8 the _ 
Society, of the legacy .... In the 
late 1990's, I solicited [the petitioner) to be our ,p;"fPGi'i )ccauo,c of her deep 
commitment to the French School and her understanding of its importance to 
future generations. She served ably in this office for two years. 
[The petitioner] is now engaged in an exciting project that will be of great benefit 
to students, scholars. ancl professional flutists around the world. She is 
Page 21 
cataloguing, and Iransferring to CD over 100 of her carefull y 
taped lessons with 
* :~ * 
Finally, I want to [the petitioner's] extraordinary gifts. I 
remember once hearing tell [the petitioner] that she was the next 
proponent of the she really understood these important 
teachings, and that it was up to her to keep this tradition alive. There is no 
question that she has done this, and is doing it, first through her performances and 
now through her teaching. 
discussed, the petitioner's current project to preserve her lessons with 
post-dates the petition's liling date. Eligibility must be established at the time 
8 §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter ofKalighak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordin~ 
will not consider the petitioner's activities alier March 1,2001 in this proceeding. __ 
does not provide specific examples of how the pctitioner's original work has already 
significantly influenced thc ficld. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
who met the petitioner at the second "minar in 
Switzerland, states: "As an internationall y acclaimed flute soloist myself, (St. Petersburg, 
Russia, Wigmore Hall, London), I have always recognized [the petitioner's] great soloist 
potential and have ired her organizational teaching and conducting skills." 
[Emphasis added.] does not explain how the petitioner's work is original or of 
major significance in the field. 
[The petitioner's 1 lessons and master classes with me starting in 1978 were very 
productive. Her hard practice and diligence brought a marked improvement from 
lesson to lesson. As I was a great admirer and student of the famed French flutist 
it could well be that she moved to Brattleboro, Vermont in 1980 to 
work him. And this she did with her usual fervor, taking 4 or 5 lessons a 
week and recording them all. ... This learning experience was exceptional and is 
being passed on 10 another generation of flutists who are her students as well as 
actually being edited and digitally preserved for future generations. . .. It is 
hich needs to b~ completed as these tapes will be deposited in 
in the New York City Public Library for all to access. 
Once again, the petitioner's project to preserve her lessons with post-dates the 
petition's filing date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Malter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the petitioner's activities after March 1, 2001 in this proceeding. While the submitted 
Page 22 
that the petitioner was a talented flute player and is passing on what she 
to her own students, there is documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the field at a level indicative of original artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
a European-trained Ilutist and music teacher, and founder of the Music West 
School for children, states: 
University in her packed. 
April 1999. 
* * 
Since that time (1999) both our personal and professional relationship has formed 
a strong bond which resulted in co-founding our music school, Music West. This 
special collaboration has made its mark in San Diego through specialized 
pedagogical classes not offered by other From the bi-
monthly master classes on 
school) to our 
to our regular summer mUSI 
is a school unlike any other in Southern California. 
The petitioner's initial evidence included a M :a: I I ~~ 11.:_ 
states that 
The brochure includes the petitioner's biography and identifies her 
as a flute instructor, but she is not identified as the school's co-founder. Regardless, the plain 
language of the regulation at ~ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions bc "of 
.. in the field" rather than limited to a particular music school or region. _ 
does not provide speeilic examples of how the petitioner's original work has intlucnced 
the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Principal Flute, Houston Symphony, states: 
I met [the petitioner] ... when she came to Houston to study at the Shepherd 
School of Music with (the with whom I was well acquainted. 
_ was a well-known and highly respected flute teacher. [The petitioner's] 
beautiful playing quickly established her as one of his most prominent pupils and 
one of the best freelance Ilutists in town. [The petitioner] ... was eager to take 
some lessons with me and talk about my experience with orchestral playing. 
'1' * * 
When tired from the Shepherd School in 1990, I was asked to join 
the faculty, so 1 became [the petitioner's] tcacher at the Shepherd school for the 
Page 23 
next few years. I won the Principal Flute position with the Houston Symphony 
during this time. 
* :~ * 
[The petitioner] is now an active professional musician and has become a valuable 
historical resource for t1utists today. Her own' for music are combined with a 
describes the petitioner as a knowledgeable and sought after teacher in the San Diego 
area, but she does not provide examples indicating how the petitioner's work is "original"' or how it 
equates to artistic contributions o[ major significance to the field. 
states that he has known 
the petition~87 when they studied toward their Doctoral Degree of Musical Arts at Rice 
University. _ further states: 
is a fascinating Ilutist and passionate teacher. Her involvement 
with classical musIC ranges [rom performing, teaching, and to 
presenting/organizing concerts. Already during the graduate music classes at 
Rice University which we both attended, she exhibited a keen understanding of all 
types of music and presented lectures and assignments of t1ute-related topics with 
thorough knowledge and passion. 
There are many t1utists well-qualified as performers and/or professors: what sets 
[the petitioner] apart is her ability to communicate her musical and pedagogical 
intentions, especially in the French Style of Ilute playing, which she has become 
sought after for, due to her direct musical relationship with who 
has been coined by musicians as "The Father of the French School of Flute 
Playing." 
While_ describes the petitioner as a knowledgeable teacher in the area o[ French style 
t1ute playing, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that her work equates to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
a San Diego area bassoonist and teacher at Point Lorna Nazarene University and 
MiraCosta College, states: 
[The petitioner] and I taught together at the California Institute of Music. 
This program was started and 
administered by - world renowned violin teachers. 
They invited only the highest caliber teachers to the faculty. 
Page 24 
In that capacity, I observed [the petitioner] conducting and rehearsing the 
orchestra numerous times in Mr. Tscitlin's absence, with exemplary results. She 
also coached chamber music, for which I was her substitute on several occasions. 
The students were extremely well-coached and informed, and their performances 
of the highest caliber a testament to her effectiveness. I also heard her 
outstanding tlute students at the California Institute of Music, and know that 
many went on to prestigious music colleges. 
The petitioner taught at the California Institute of Music subsequent to the petition's filing date. 
As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. ~* 
103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katii!,hak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the petitioner's activities at the California Institute of Music in this proceeding. 
continues: 
Because of my duties within the Music Teachers Association of California. I am 
moreover critical. 
ts. Her direct link to the legacies of Jean­
and the French style is most evident; and 
I'm also aware of some significant and important changes to the performance 
program that [the petitioner] implemented as a faculty member at San Diego 
State University which are still in effect. She has also served as the president of 
the San Diego Flute Guild, and as such, brought some extraordinary master class 
artists to San Diego - educating not just tlutists, but professional musicians of all 
instruments. 
Finally, as performers, [the petitioner] and I performed nearly one hundred local 
concerts with We provided an extraordinary 
service to the San Diego Community, performing for audiences from all walks of 
life. The mission: keeping classical music alive. We not only encouraged young 
people to begin an instrument or remain in music by dazzling them with 
exceptional concerts - but we also demonstrated the science of our instruments. 
Her work in the quintet was outstanding, as well was her rapport with the public. 
that the petitioncr's teaching and performances have benefited the 
area, does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original 
work has notably intluenced the field in general or otherwise equates to contributions of major 
significance in the classical music field. 
a renowned jazz saxophonist, states: 
I first met [the petitioner] when I invited her graduate students from San Diego 
State University in the summer of 20m to my house for a flute master class. As 
an internationally famed jazz saxophonist for over 63 years, I also have recorded 
Page 25 
and received great praise as a brilliant artist on the flute. As a performer and flute 
teacher with European instruction, [the petitioner] impressed me by her artistry 
and ability to teach combinations of the French School with that of other 
acceptable schools of playing. Her many years of~nnections with 
persons of the French School of Flute (most notably _) make her one 
of the few left who is . to teach this style. In addition, she 
has been authorized by to teach his methods, which she shares 
with all her students at her school Music West Institute. Although I am highly 
acclaimed as a flutist and have won many awards as a flutist, there is always room 
for improvement and [the petitioner] is the one I have chosen to instruct me on 
improving my flute skills. 
She made such a positive impression with mc that at the class at my house with 
the ability to improve my sound, especially the bottom notes so quickly, that I 
asked her to come back did so for over an 
hour and she brought methods that she is 
to teach because of her lifetime expose and studies with the famed 
and other teachers of the French school. 
The petitioner's collaboration with _ in 2007 post-dates the petition's tiling date. As 
previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
consider the petitioner's activities in this proceeding. 
comments do not indicate that the petItIoner has developed her own 
to util methodologies passed down from her previous teachers 
under her immediate tutelage. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
tly impacted the lield beyond the pupils 
states: 
During my tenure, this department has had several music majors who have had 
. te as their primary instrument. One of these students, Miss 
chose [the petitioner] as her private instructor upon the 
TeiXifiiiTieiiidai Ion of several of the most accomplished flautists in the greater San 
Diego area. It is notable that [the petitioner] would not accept any compensation 
for her teaching. 
The progress shown by this student under the tutelage of [the petitioner] was 
remarkable, and she went on to acquire an advanced degree in flute performance 
at a major conservatory of music. 
It is my opinion that [the petitioner] possesses a rare and special talent to teach 
flute to young people. It is also clear to me that there is a demand for her abilities 
because the flautists we consulted, some belonging to the San Diego Symphony 
Page 26 
Orchestra, trusted her with our music studcnt. This institution will certainly 
continue to recommend her as an instructor for our music majors who play 
classical flute 
does not identify the dates of _s tutelage by the petItioner. As 
previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time ~.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Kati[!,bak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless,_ does 
not explain how the petitioner's instruction 01'_ is indicative of an original contribution 
of major significance in the classical music field. 
The preceding reference letters submitted by the petitioner discuss her talent as a flutist, musical 
performances, activities with various organizations as an educator of young musicians, and 
musical training, but they do not specify exactly what her "original" contributions in the field of 
music have been. Nor do they provide specific examples indicating how any such original 
contributions were of major significance in the field (such as through the widespread adoption of 
ber original methods of instruction). Mastering and subsequently teacbing a playing style 
developed by others is not demonstrative of an "original" contribution to the lield. While the 
petitioner has earned the admiration of her references as a talented flutist and educator, the 
record not establish 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 influence on other 
professional flutists working in the field at the time of filing, nor does it show that the field has 
specifically changed as a result of her work. 
The opinions of experts in the field arc 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 linal 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. Sec id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 200~) (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 flutist or music teacher who has 
made original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in her field, the 
AAO cannot conclude that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the aliell's all11iorsliip of scholarly articles in the field, ill professional or 
major trade publications or otlier major media. 
The petitioner's initial documentation included evidence of two HOl/ston FIWe Newsletter 
with [the 
plain language of thc regulation at 
articles authored the ·tioner entitled 
petitioner 1" and 
Page 27 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires ""[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in 
the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media" [emphasis added]. 
Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a particular field of study, arc peer­
reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. In this instance, the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that the prcceding articles were peer-reviewed, contain any references to 
sources, or were otherwise considered "scholarly." Moreover. there is no circulation evidence 
showing that the Houstoll FIIl1I! Ciuh Newslerter is a professional or major trade publication or 
some other form of major media. 
bmitted reference letters that briefly mention her doctoral thesis. For 
June 25, 2009 letter states that the petitioner's 
was the first ever catalogue of Canadian flute music and is housed 
nn,,,p,,s and with UMI's Dissertation Abstracts data base (number 
_, a widely used international resource." The record, however, does not include a copy of 
the petitioner's doctoral thesis, or evidence of its inclusion in the Library of Congress or the UMI 
Dissertation Abstracts database. As previously discussed, 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. A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § !03.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further. there is no evidence showing that a professional or major trade 
publication or some other form of major media published the petitioner's doctoral thesis. 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies. the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires the petitioner's "authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade p"iJlicaliOl/S or other major media" [emphasis added] in the plural. 
The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) arc 
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)(8) that evidence of experience must be in the form of '"Ietter(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. USCfS, Civ. Act. No. ()/i-215K 
(RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 20(8); Sllapllames.com fllc. v. Chertojj: 2006 WL 349!O05 at 
*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, even if the petitioner wcre 
to establish that her doctoral thesis meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which it does 
not, the plain language of the regulation at K C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of the 
petitioner's authorship of scholarly articln in more than one major publication. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Page 28 
Evidence that the alien has perfbrmed in a leading or critical role for organizatiol1S 
or establishments that have a distin/{uished reputation. 
Roles performed by the petitioner after the date of filing will not be considered in this 
proceeding. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Malter of Kati/{bak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. All of the case law on this 
issue focuses on the policy of preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope that 
they will subsequently be able to demonstrate eligibility. See Matter of Win/{·s Tea House. 16 
I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg·1 Comm·r 1977); Malter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also 
Matter of lzllmmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Comm·r 1998) (citing Matter of Barciollille, 18 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1(81) for the proposition that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the tiling of a petition .. ·) Ultimately, in order to be meritorious in fact, 
a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it was 
filed. Ogundipe v. Mllkasev, 541 F.3d 257. 261 (4'" Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider roles performed by the petitioner after March 1,2001 in this proceeding. 
On appeal, counsel does not point to specific documentary evidence that meets the elements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
that she worked as 
Houston Community notes an 
who does not hold a permanent position at that particular academic institution. While the 
petitioner has performed admirably as a music teacher at the preceding schools, there is no 
evidence showing that her part-time roles were leading or critical for the preceding educational 
institutions. For example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the 
petitioner's positions fell within the general hierarchy of her colleges and university. The 
petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how her part-time positions differentiated her from the 
other full-time music teachers employed by the preceding institutions, let alone their tenured faculty 
and department chairs. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that she 
was responsible for the preceding institutions· success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role:· Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
preceding institutions have distinguished reputation in the field of classical music. As previously 
discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSojfici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. 
__ states that the petitioner was the.IIII!I •••••••••• iiiII ........ . 
_ but there is no evidence documenting the number of students enrolled in the academy. 
its profitability, the success of its students, or an other documentary evidence of its 
distinguished reputation in the music field. Similarly, states that the petitioner co­
founded Music West School for Children. The petitioner's initial evidence included a Music 
West Summer - July 2000 Music & Art Academy Brochure. The brochure states that _ 
_ "is Director and founder of Music West School for children." The brochure inclu~ 
the petitioner's biography and identities her as a t1ute instructor, but she is not identilied as the 
school's co-founder. Further, the Music West brochure is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
school has a distinguished reputation. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See 
Page 29 
Braga v. PUll los, No. CY 06 5105 SJO (c. D. CA July 6, 2(07) aiI'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (9'h Cir. 
2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
The petitioner submitted event programs and reference letters indicating that she performed with 
various opera companies, orchestras, and quintets, but the record lacks documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's role for these music groups was leading or critical. Further, there 
is no documentary evidence showing that they have a distinguished reputation when compared to 
other successful music groups and orchestras. 5 As previously discussed, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter ofSuffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence uf commacial s/lccess"s ill the perjiJrming arts, as shown hy hux office 
receipts ur record, cassette, compacl disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submitted event programs and reference letters indicating that she gave musical 
performances as a flutist, but there is no evidence in the form of sales or receipts showing that her 
concerts or music recordings were commercially successful. 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 as a flutist 
in concerts or in educational settings 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 her. Further, there is no evidence showing, for example, that 
the petitioner's musical recordings have generated substantial sales revenue. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
S/lmmary 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must he satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, as 
the documentation submitted hy the petitioner does not meet the minimum eligibility 
-~ For comparison, some examples of orchLslras with distinguished reputations include the Berlin Philharmonic, 
London Symphony Orchestra, Vil:nna Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Boston Symphony 
Orchestra, and the New York Philharmonic. 5;('(' a!1icle entitled "Chicago Symphony Tops U.S. Orchestras" at 
hI Ip:l/WWV,i .npr.or~ill'l11pb lcs/Sit Hy.i;-'Jllry .php '.' ("( 2()~;Jorv I d--t) 7?'J J YJO, accessed on January 1]. 2012, cnpy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 30 
requirements for the classification sought, the AAO finds that the petition was clearly approved 
in error and that the director had good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval the petition. 
See Matter ofHo, lLJ I&N Dec. atSLJO. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in thc 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a "Ievel 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 havc been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 5LJ6 F.3d at IIILJ-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in our preccding discussion of the categories of evidence at S C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (iii), (v), (vi), (viii), and (x). 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
this decision has already addressed why the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
rise to the level of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish her receipt of "prizes or awards" that 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. Regarding the 
petitioner's Rice University scholarship and master class training sessions under the instruction 
of Sir Galway, the AAO finds that they fail to demonstrate the petitioner "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the lield of endeavor." See S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." 
Matter afPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 19LJ4); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60SLJLJ. Likewise, it 
does not follow that receiving a university scholarship or attending a master class to further one's 
musical training should necessarily qualify for approval of an extraordinary ability employmcnt­
based immigrant visa petition. The AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 1533\LJ at "A 
(N.D. Ill. Feb. \6, ILJLJ5), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison 
is not a comparison of Racine's ahility 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, Crimson v. INS, No. LJ3 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. 60SLJ/l-LJLJ. 
The court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved j()r "that small percentage of" 
individuals that have risen to the very top of their tield of endeavor.·' 
Page 31 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's memberships in the 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. Further, the petitioner has not 
established that her memberships are indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international 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. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
all of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least one of the regulatory requirements 
such as not including an author. not being about the petitioner, or not being accompanied by 
evidence that they were published in major media. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that 
the published material about her is 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. 
In regard to the evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), there 
is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the pctitioner's work had major significance in 
the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally acclaimed as 
extraordinary. Aside from the petitioner's failure to submit evidence demonstrating that she has 
made original artistic contributions of major significance in the field, the AAO notes that the 
petitioner's claim is based partly on recommendation letters. The letters of support, while 
indicating that the petitioner is a talented flutist and educator, do not consistently establish her 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Talent alone is not the 
statutory standard for the classification sought. Rather, Congress mandated that eligibility would be 
established by extensive evidence of national or international acclaim. Section 203(b)( I )(A)(i) of 
the Act. Congress expressed its intent that this classification be limited to those who could 
demonstrate a one-time achievement (not claimed in this case) or a career of acclaimed work. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-273,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The AAO notes nt that he has 
"recognized [the petitioner's I great soloist potelltia/" a characterization 
is not indicative of or consistent with a conclusion that the petitioner is already one of the small 
percentage at the very top of her field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, 
rather than for flutists or music teachers progressing toward the top at some unspecified future 
time. 
While reference letters can provide important details about the petitioner's music experience and 
activities in the field, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability 
claim. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" 
necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien' s immediate personal and professional 
contacts. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, K U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and K C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(J)(A)(i) of 
the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of 
Page 32 
extraordinary ability is rctlected in this regulation by requmng the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" t(lr lesser classifications. 3~ 
(July 5,1991). Even when written by recognized experts such as and_ 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are 0 weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a flutist or an educator who has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not 
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 his field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that she has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. For instance, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish 
that her adjunct professorships were leading or critical to her educational institutions, or otherwise 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted [or the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), 
the failed to submit documentary evidence of "sales" or "receipts" showing that she achieved 
commercial successes in the performing arts. The evidence submitted by the petitioner is not 
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 docs not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The~adjunct Ilute 
professor since the late 1990s, relies heavily on her~e by _ in the early 
1980s and her participation in master classes given b_ in 1989, 1990, and 1996. While 
this may distinguish the petitioner from other student flutists, the AAO will not narrow her field to 
those in the training phase of their musical career. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner's rpfpn>n 
the petitioner submitted a biography for 
are far more impressive. For example, 
stating: 
In 1993 she relinquished her position 
with the Boston Symphony Orchestra to pursue a more active teaching and solo 
career after 22 years as an orchestral musician. Acting principal flutist of the 
BSO during her last three years in Boston. she was invited by a JOIn 
the orchestra in 1983 as assistant principal flutist and principal flutist of the 
Previously she served as assistant principal flutist of the San 
"m'hnny and played solo piccolo and second flute with 
The only American finalist in the 1969 Geneva International Flute 
__ has appeared as soloist with 
Page 33 
Boston Symphony, the Boston Pops, the San Francisco Symphony, the Utah 
Symphony, the Rochester Philharmonic, and the New Hampshire Music Festival, 
of which she was principal flutist for ten years, She has performed with the 
Boston Symphony Chamber Players throughout Europe and Japan, with the 
Tokyo, Juilliard, Brentano, and Muir 
Camera of Houston, and in recital 
has also been a guest artist on the Nati 
series in Ottawa, Summer festival appearances include Aspen, Sarasota, Norfolk, 
Orcas Island, Domaine Forget (Quebec), Sitka, Maui, Steamboat Springs, Park 
City (Utah), Aria International Summer Academy, the Ithaca Flute Institute, the 
Lake Placid Instit h Orchestra of the Amcricas, With her 
she performs in the Webster Trio and thc 
The petitioner also submitted information that he released more than 
thirty albums, that he regularl y performed as a and that "he became widely 
known through television appearances, an international concert schedule, and recordings ranging 
from classical and popular music to jazz and folk music." 
In this matter, the petitioner has not cstablished that her achievements at the time of filing wcrc 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as musician or educator, or being 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The submittcd evidence 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). The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence 
to meet each category of evidence at 1\ C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a rcview 
of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the cvidcnce 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. 
1\ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
IV, 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. 
Page 34 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 13ti1. The burden remains with the petitioner in revocation proceedings to 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter o( ChewII{, 12 
I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 19otl): Matter o(F'lime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 n.l: and Matter oIHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 589. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.