dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Opera

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 1 0 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of.Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requ irements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, 
filing location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�berg 
t"chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. We will grant the motion and affirm 
the denial of the petition. 
The petitioner, a traditional Chinese opera performer, seeks classification as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" in the a.rts, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1)(A), which makes visas available to individuals 
who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and 
failed to submit extensive documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. In 
addition, the director determined that the petitioner had not established that she was among that 
small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. In our September 26, 2014, decision, we 
upheld the director's decision. 
The petitioner fi�ed the motion to reopen on October 17, 2014. The petitioner's motion includes a 
brief and additional evidence. On April 3, 2015, we issued a notice to the petitioner requesting 
that she submit the originals of 
_ 
, and her "Membership 
Certificate of 
_ _ 
" The petitioner responded by submitting the 
requested documents. Accordingly, the petitioner has complied with the regul ation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103. 2(b)(5), and overcome our previous finding that she did not submit the requested original 
documents. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time 
achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in 
the field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will affirm the denial of the 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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. I d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h )(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through evidence 
of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does 
not submit this evidence, then she must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See 
also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application 
of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 12 6, 131-3 2 
(D.D.C. 2013 ) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context 
of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts that she meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a "Certificate of Congressional Recognition" 
that she received from Dr. Member of 
· 
The certificate states: "In Recognition of the Your [sic] High Standards of 
Excellence and Outstanding Achievements. Your Steadfast Effort to Promote Artistic Cultural 
Exchanges in the Greater Area had Injected Creative Spirits into our Local 
Communities." There is no documentary evidence demonstrating the national or international 
recognition of the aforementioned award in the petitioner' s field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally 
or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element 
of this criterion. There is no evidence showing that the certificate was recognized beyond the Los 
Angeles area at a level commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. 
In addition, the petitioner submits a commendation from the "County of 
' stating: "IN RE COGNITIO N OF [THE PETIT IO NER'S] EXCEPTIONAL 
PERFORMA NCE AND IN PRESE NTING HER ARTISTIC TALE NT, THE COUNTY OF 
HEREB Y ACKNOWLE DGES HER OUTSTA NDING ACHIEV EME NT IN 
BRIDGING ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL COMMUNITIES .. .. " The petitioner received the 
aforementioned commendation subsequent to filing the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker 
(Form I-140) on April 11, 2011. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.P.R. § 10 3.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Accordingly, we cannot consider the commendation as evidence to establish the 
petitioner' s eligibility at the time of filing. Regardless, the commendation from 
reflects local recognition and not a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the petitio ner's field. 
In our appellate decision, we stated: 
The petitioner submitted a December 1991 certi ficate from the 
stating that she was "Outstanding Young 
Performer " and a December award plaque from the 
Competition stating that she was awarded "Outstanding 
Performance." In addition, the petitioner submitted a January 1992 article posted at 
entitled 
Competition Ended Successfully. " The article states that 41 i ndi viduals "received the 
young excellent performs [sic] " award." The petitioner, however, did not submit 
objective documentary evidence specifying the number of VISitors to 
to demonstrate that the website's news is indicative of national 
recognition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
On motion, the petitioner submits an October 2014 ' data report (printed 
from for cnki.com.cn as evidence of website's national 
recognition. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) website, however, is not a 
primary news source. Rather, the CNKI website offers a searchable database comprised of 
"93 17 titles of full-text iournals."2 The petitioner retrieved the article, entitled ' 
Competition Ended Successfully," from the CNKI 
database, but the accompanying English language translation that she provided did not identify 
the specific Chinese journal in which the article was published. In addition, the submitted 
translation was not a full English language translation of the online content retrieved from 
http://www.cnki.com.cn? Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2 (b)(3), any document 
containing a foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. Without evidence identifying the journal in which the 
_ 
article appeared 
and its readership, we cannot conclude that the coverage is indicative of national recognition. 
There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
"Outstanding Young Perf ormer" award was recognized beyond the presenting organization at a 
level commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the field. 
Our appellate decision further stated: 
The petitioner submitted an "Certificate of Honors" stating that she 
"won the 'Excellent performance award' ( 1 in the first contest for 
Award' in the ." .. . The 
petitioner also submitted information about the ' Award" posted at 
but no information about the petitioner's "Excellent performance 
award ' is posted. Further, the petitioner did not submit objective 
documentary evidence specifying the number of visitors to the 
website to demonstrate that its news is indicative of national recognition. 
On motion, the petitioner submits an October 2014 ' ' data report for 
baidu.com as evidence of website's national recognition. The data report states: "Baidu.com -
The leading Chinese language search engine, provides 'simple and reliable' search experience, 
strong in Chinese language and multi-media content .. .. " The submitted information reflects 
that baidu.com is a search engine (similar to Google) and is not a primary news source. The 
petitioner retrieved the information about the using the baidu.com 
search engine, but the accompanying English language translation that she provided did not 
2 See accessed on May 13, 2015, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
3 As a result of the incomplete English language translation, our appellate decision incorrectly stated that 
the article was "posted at http://www.cnki.com.cn" rather than correctly stating that the article had been 
"retrieved from" the CNKI database. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
identify the original source of the ' information.4 Regardless, the 
petitioner's "Certificate of Honors" states that she won the '"Excellent performance award' 
" and not the' Award." The documentation submitted on motion 
does not overcome our finding that the results from did not provide any 
further information about the petitioner's . � "Excellent performance award 
" There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's award was 
recognized beyond. the presenting organization at a level commensurate with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, we affirm our prior determination that the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. 
With regard to the petitioner's "Membership Certificate of 
1 ), our decision stated: 
The submitted credential misspells "Theatre" on both its cover and in the section with the 
petitioner's personal information, thus diminishing the reliability of the document. Doubt 
cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Despite our request for 
evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original of her membership certificate. 
On motion, the petiti oner submits the original of her membership certificate and a 
December 2013 commentary posted at mentioning the "many English 
mistakes within" the membership certificates. The online commentary confirming the 
multiple misspellings, however, does not increase the reliability of the petitioner's 
membership document. 
In our appellate decision, we 
verification letter from the 
the 
mentioned that the petitioner submitted a September 2010 
with an accompanying translation stating that she "jointed [sic] 
on September 2001." In addition, we noted that the petitioner 
4 Again, as a result of the incomplete English language translation, our appellate decision incorrectly 
stated that the article was "posted at rather than correctly stating that the article 
had been "retrieved using" the baidu.com search engine. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
submitted two letters from 
directors of the 
who identified himself as a member of the board of 
We further stated that none of the submitted letters included an address, a telephone number, or 
any other information through which the could be contacted. We determined that the lack of 
proper contact information as a means for verifying the information in the letters diminished their 
reliability. We also noted that the letters from Mr. (dated March 6, 2011, and September 
23, 2011) were not consistent in their description of the membership requirements. 
Our appellate decision further stated: 
The petitioner submitted a webpage that she alleges is "The Article of Incorporation of 
The webpage has a URL of 
identifiers for the 
The petitioner has not established or asserted that the 
one in the same. In addition, the website for the 
and lists two other 
but not the 
and the are 
not The submitted English language translation for Article 8 of 
the Articles of Incorporation states that theater workers "who are at the relatively high 
level with definite accomplishments .. . may become a member after approval from the 
standing committee of this association." Even if the petitioner established that the 
submitted requirements were for the and not the which she has not, we 
cannot conclude that performing at a "relatively high level with definite 
accomplishments" rises to the level of "outstanding achievements." In addition, the 
submitted evidence does not show that members' achievements are judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On motion, the petitioner submits information from website stating that the federation 
"practices a group membership" consisting of "fifty-two group members," one of which is the 
In addition, the petitioner submits information about the that she retrieved using the 
"Baidu Wikipedia" search engine at baidu.com, but the accompanying English language 
translation that she provides does not identify the original source of the information. The 
information from Baidu Wikipedia states that the "is the highest level association of 
Chinese theatre in China. All members of the Association have obtained outstanding 
achievements with the Chinese theatre field, and all of them have the expert level in individual 
professional field." The submitted information further states: "All of members are obtained 
[sic] outstanding contributions such as: playwrights, directors, actors, stage artists, theatre 
educators, theatre leaders, and theatre activists." The information from Baidu Wikipedia, 
however, does not define what constitutes "outstanding achievements" or "outstanding 
contributions." Repeating the language of the regulation does not automatically satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D. N.Y. 
1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, 
1997 WL 188942, *1, *5 (S. D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
With regard to the inconsistent information about the membership requirements 
submitted from Baidu Wikipedia, and the two letters from Mr. it 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Regardless, the submitted evidence does not show that 
CTA members' achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In light of the above, we affirm our prior determination that the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. 
With regard to the article about the petitioner in magazine entitled " 
." our decision stated: 
Despite our request for evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original material from 
the magazine. Accordingly, we cannot assign any weight to this evidence. Regardless, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence such as objective circulation figures showing that 
is a major trade publication or a form of major media. 
On motion, the petitioner submits the original of magazine. In addition, the 
petitioner submits information about that she retrieved using the Baidu 
Wikipedia search engine, but the accompanying English language translation that she provided 
did not identify the original source of the information. The submitted information states: 
" magazine maintains a high circulation figures record with the current monthly 
circulation figures as 200,000 copies." There is no objective evidence showing the circulation of 
relative to other Chinese publications, however, to demonstrate that the magazine 
is a major trade publication or a form of major media. 
Our appellate decision further stated: 
The petitioner submitted photographs that she asserts show her "being interviewed by 
Mr. anchor for the column of ' 
in 
" 
The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien ... relating to the alien's 
work in the field" including "the title, date and author of the material." A television 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
program interview featuring the petitioner does not meet these requirements. In addition, 
although the petitioner submitted information from stating that the 
network has "11 stations and a national audience of 1.3 billion" and a letter from 
Radio and Television stating that the interview aired on 
the petitioner did not submit a complete printed transcript for the 
television program or evidence of the viewership figures for the specific program on 
on which the interview was broadcast. 
On motion, the petitioner submits information about from Wildpedia. With regard to 
information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this 
open, user-edited internet site.5 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 
2008). Accordingly, we assign little weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. In 
addition, the petitioner submits information about that she retrieved 
using the Baidu Wikipedia search engine, but the accompanying English language translation 
that she provides does not identify the original source of the information. The submitted 
information states that "is the largest opera channel " and has viewership of "180 
million people." Regardless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "published 
material about the alien" including "the title, date and author of the material." Again, a 
television program interview featuring the petitioner does not meet these requirements. In 
addition, the petitioner did not submit a complete printed transcript for the program 
demonstrating that the interview was about her and relating to her work as a performer. 
In light of the above, we affirm our prior determination that the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
5 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the 
information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, 
vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge 
in the relevant fields. 
See http:ljen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on May 14, 2015, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. On motion, the petitioner does not contest our findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. As the petitioner does not offer an argument for this criterion, the issue is 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 2011) (plaintiffs 
claims abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm our prior determination 
that the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion stating: 
The petitioner submitted three articles that she alleges were published in the book 
Despite our request for evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original of 
the 
_ 
book. Accordingly, we cannot assign any weight to this evidence. 
Regardless, the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that 
is a professional or major trade publication or form of major media. 
On motion, the petitioner submits the original of the _ book. The petitioner, 
however, has not submitted any documentary evidence demonstrating that is a 
professional or major trade publication or form of major media. Accordingly, we affirm our prior 
determination that the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. On motion, the petitioner does not contest our findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, we affirm our prior determination 
that the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this 
criterion. On motion, the petitioner does not contest our findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F. 3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, we affirm our prior determination 
that the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence o.f commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Although the petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility for this regulatory criterion, she 
submits an event program reflecting that she performed in the 
the 
in California in 
In addition, the petitioner submits an event program reflecting that she performed in 
on . . The petitioner performed at the aforementioned events subsequent 
· to filing the Form I-140 petition on April 11, 2011. Again, eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 10 3.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, we cannot consider the May 2011 and June 2013 performances as evidence to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. Regardless, the petitioner did not submit 
any specific sales figures for the events. This regulatory criterion focuses on volume of sales and 
receipts as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. Therefore, 
the fact that the petitioner performed before an audience is insufficient, in and of itself, to meet 
this criterion. The evidence must show that the volume of sales or receipts reflect the 
petitioner's commercial success relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts. The petitioner, however, did not submit documentary evidence of "sales" or "receipts" 
demonstrating that her performances were indicative of commercial successes in the performing 
arts. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm our prior determination that the petitioner has not 
submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 
a "level of expertise indicatin g that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the 
petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the sustained acclaim required for the classification sought. 6 There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner has garnered sustained national or international 
acclaim as a traditional Chinese opera performer since her arrival in the United States in _ 
For example, in recent years, the petitioner has not received any nationally recognized awards for 
her performances or been the subject major media coverage as a traditional Chinese opera 
performer. The petitioner has not demonstrated that her local performances and honors m 
California are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim in the performing arts. 
Although the new evidence submitted by the petitioner provided a basis for granting the motion to 
reopen under 8 C.P.R. § 103. 5(a)(2), the submitted documentation does not overcome the grounds 
underlying our prior decision. Accordingly, we will affirm our appellate decision for the above 
stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for 
the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted, our decision of September 26, 2014, is affirmed, 
and the petition remains denied. 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of 
Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to 
conduct a final merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)( 1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).