dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Opera / Broadcasting

(b)(6)
Date : SEP 2 6 2014 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admin istrative Appeals 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE : 
1-2908 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F .R. § 1 03 .5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
)'4org Chie~~~inistrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner , a traditional Chinese opera performer and a local AM radio news anchor, seeks 
classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. 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. 
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)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence . In the brief, the petitioner asserts 
that she meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (vii), that she has sustained 
national or international acclaim, that the director's final merits determination was in error, and that 
the director failed to properly consider the submitted evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, we will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for the classification sought. We withdraw the director's findings that the 
petitioner's evidence meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), (vi), and (vii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she satisfies the antecedent regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See 
Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v . DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). Furthermore, as will be explained in the 
final merits determination, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
I. Petitioner's failure to submit requested original documents 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(5) 
provides, in part: 
Request for an original document. USCIS may, at any time, request submission of an original 
document for review . The request will set a deadline for submission of the original 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
document. Failure to submit the requested original document by the deadline may result in 
denial or revocation of the underlying benefit request. 
On May 29, 2014 , we issued a notice to the petitioner requesting that she provide certified English 
language translations for her Chinese language documents and that she "[p ]lease submit the originals 
of the following evidence" : 
1. (initial evidence exhibit 
1 ); 
2. (initial evidence exhibits 
16 and 35): 
3. (initial evidence 
exhibits 18 and 41): and 
4. (initial evidence exhibit 30). 
In accordance with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(5) and (8), the petitioner was afforded 
twelve weeks in which to respond to the notice. The petitioner responded to the notice with properly 
certified English language translations for her Chinese language documents and with additional 
photocopies of her documents , but failed to submit to the requested original documents for items 1 -
4 above. For this reason alone, the petition is denied. Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14) provides: "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the benefit request. " Based on the petitioner's failure to submit 
the requested originals (items 1 
- 4) in response to the May 29, 2014 notice , this petition cannot be 
approved. 
II. 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 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifYing evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "In Kazarian the Ninth Circuit held that the alien has met only 2 of the 
criteria and that ifhe met 3 of the 10 criteria, the petition should be approved. In our case petitioner has 
met 4 of the criteria; therefore, the petition should be approved according to rule of Kazarian." 
The petitioner's argument is not persuasive and misinterprets the court's findings. In 2010, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition filed under this 
classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld our 
decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a 
given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while users 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." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we 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 we concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detern1ination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detem1ines 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 
1 Specifically , the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirem ents beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi ). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" v1sa. 
8 U.S.e. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. The final merits discussion that appears in the Kazarian decision is a necessary 
corollary to the majority 's discussion of how users should consider evidence under the regulatory 
criteria. In other words, the court's conclusion that users cannot raise certain concerns when 
counting the evidence is predicated on the understanding that USeiS can do so at a later stage. To 
apply only half of the court' s procedure would effectively negate USeiS' ability to consider the 
quality of the evidence at any stage. The final merits determination step discussed in Kazarian is not 
only persuasive but necessary to understanding the court's decision as a whole. In Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th eir. 2012), the court reiterated that 
simply meeting at least three criteria is not sufficient; once the petitioner has met that threshold, 
"USeiS can then proceed to the ultimate inquiry," i.e., whether the petitioner has established 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly , we find the petitioner 's argument that since 
the director determined that she met three of the evidentiary criteria, Kazarian requires approval of 
her petition without merit. 
Thus, despite the petitioner's argument that simply meeting three regulatory criteria is automatic 
grounds for approval, 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 this matter, we will apply the two-step 
analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor . 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; Dor v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The oetitioner submitted a July 19, 2004 certificate stating that she "won the ' Golden Prize' in 
held by the 
. In addition, the petitioner also submitted an 
article in 
the prece ing contest and ment10nmg that she receiVed .. the gota awara. -­
evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original published material in 
commenting on 
uespne our request for 
2 On appeal , the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore , no determination has been made regardin g whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Accordingly, we cannot assign any weight to the August 2004 article. Regardless, the petitioner did 
not submit evidence such as objective circulation figures showing that coverage in 
ls indicative of national recognition. 
The petitioner submitted an October 2001 certificate stating that she "won the '2"d Prize' in 
) held by the 
In addition, the etitioner 
submitted a November 2009 "Certificate of Honor" for being among " 
The petitioner, however, did not submit any supportmg 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the preceding 2"d Prize and Certificate of Honor were 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The petitioner 
submitted no other documentation explaining the significance of the award or its national or 
international recognition as an award of excellence. 
The petitioner submitted a December 1991 certificate from the 
Competition statinr that she was and a 
December 1991 award plaque from the 
Competition stating that she was awarded The petitioner also 
snhmitted materia.! ahout the competition entitled 
that was in a "Special Issue" event program prepared by the competitiOn 
organizers. In addition, the petitioner submitted an event program entitled 
Competition Opera Highlights" listing the acts and perfcnmers. 
The petitioner also submitted a December 9, 1991 
" event program. Lastly, me pennoner suomnrea a 
January 1992 article posted at http:/·-===== entitled ' 
The article states that 41 individuals 
"received the young excellent performs [sic]" award. The petitioner, however, did not submit 
objective documentary evidence specifying the number of visitors to http://W\V\;v to 
demonstrate that the website's news is indicative of national recognition. 
The petitioner submitted an August 18 1999 
'Excellent performance award' 
Award' in the sixth 
numerous winners who received 
"Certificate of Honors" stating that she "won the 
[n the first contest for 
' The petitioner also submitted a listing of 
In addition, the petitioner submitted information about the 
posted on the website; there is no posting about the petitioner's award. The petitioner also 
submitted information about the , 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 http:// "-··-- --- ------~---11 website to demonstrate that its news is indicative of national 
recognition. Lastly, the petitioner submitted a July 21, 1999 article in ~ntitled ' 
' but the article does not mention 
the petitioner's "Excellent performance 
award 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The eetitioner submitted a January 8, 2003 "Honorary Credential" stating that she received "an 
for the nlav in th 
Event held by the " In addition, the petitioner 
submitted what she states is an article posted on mentioning that she won an 
"excellent performing award" at the The 
submitted article, however, does not include the uniform resource locator (URL) or internet address 
showing that it was printed from the website. The lack of a URL diminishes the 
reliability of the petitioner's evidence. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
"Traffic Report" fm . indicating that the website's "overall rank is 372,711 amongst 
all websites in the world." The petitioner has not established that such a ranking demonstrates that 
news posted on is indicative of national recognition. 
Although the petitioner submitted information about the preceding competitions and letters of 
support briefly mentioning her awards, she did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating the 
national or international recognition of her particular awards. 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 documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's specific awards were 
recognized beyond the presenting organizations or her references at a level commensurate with 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meetsthis 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 orfields. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
In the appeal brief, the petitioner asserts that the director disqualified her membership in the 
without discussing the membership requirements. 
As previously mentioned, the petitioner submitted her " _ 
[sic] 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. Accordingly, we cannot assign any weight to 
this evidence. 
The petitioner also submitted a September 2010 verification letter from the with an 
accompanying translation stating that she "jointed [sic] the on 
September 2001." The submitted letter does not include an address, a telephone number, or any 
other information 
through which the can be contacted. The lack of proper contact information 
as a means for verifying the information in the letter diminishes its reliability. In addition, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
petitioner submitted a document that she claims is a page from the website identifying her as 
member of the The submitted document, however, does not include the URL showing that it 
was printed from the website. Again, the lack of a URL or internet address on the document 
diminishes the reliability of the petitioner's evidence. 
The petitioner submitted a webpage that she alleges is 
The webpage has a URL of http://\-V\V\; 
4th Atiicle-28.htm1 and lists two other identifiers for the , but not that of the The 
petitioner has not established or asserted that the and the are one in the same. In 
addition, the website for the 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 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 nembers' achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In light of the above, 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
In the appeal brief, the petitioner asserts that she submitted published material from "national and 
world level media." 
The petitioner submitted a January 8, 2003 article about her that she alleges was posted on 
The submitted document, however, does not include the URL 
showing that it was printed from the _ website. Again, the lack of a URL on the 
document diminishes the reliability of the petitioner's evidence. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
"Traffic Report" for indicating that the website's "overall rank 
is 372,711 amongst all websites in the world." The petitioner has not established that such a ranking 
demonstrates tha· is a major trade publication or form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article about her in magazine I 
November 1999) entitled _ _ 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted an online article about her in entitled "[The petitioner]: 
' but there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the website is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in 
AlJOlt<;;t ?004) entitled "rThe netitionerl -
magazme, 
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. In addition, the article is mostly about the commentator's views on the 
and not about the petitioner. The plain 
language of the regulation requires "published material about the alien." Articles that are not about 
the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -00820 
at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). Lastly, the petitioner 
did not submit objective circulation evidence showing that 
is a major trade publication or a form of major media. 
The netitioner submitted a article about er in ~ntitled "fThe petitionerl - A 
but 
the date of the material was not provided as required bv this regulatory criterion. In addition, there 
is no documentary evidence showing that s a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a photograph that she asserts shows her "being interviewed by 
:mchor for the column of -
in June 2003." 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 program interview featuring the petitioner does not 
meet these requirements. In addition, although the petitioner's appellate submission includes 
information stating that has a network of 19 channels and is accessible to more than one 
billion viewers," the petitioner did not submit the printed transcript for the television program or 
evidence identifying the specific show and channel on which her interview was broadcast. 
In light of the above, 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner 's "participation ... 
as a judge of the work of others." Although the petitioner may have been appointed to the preceding 
judging committees and institute, there is no documentary evidence of her actual participation as a 
judge. For instance, there is no documentary evidence showing the specific work judged by the 
petitioner and the names of those whose work she evaluated. Submitting certificates stating that the 
petitioner was appointed as a judge without evidence demonstrating that she actually served as a 
judge is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
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 business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The director stated that the letters from the petitioner ' s peers and colleagues failed to 
demonstrate that her work was of major significance in the field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 
Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original artistic contributions "of major significance in 
the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted 
inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nct Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that her "evidence not only included supporting letters, it included 
documented evidence -
a news report from a journalist in 2003. " The petitioner states that her 
"original contribution to traditional pingju opera is her performing acrobatic fighting in pingju opera 
for the " 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from 
scholar who states that he is a member of the 
. _ _ None of the preceding individuals, however, 
comment that the petitioner's "original contribution to traditional pingju opera is her performing 
acrobatic fighting in pingju opera for the first time in" the opera's history or point to specific 
examples of how her work was of major significance to traditional Chinese opera. In addition, the 
submitted letters do not include an address, a telephone number, or any other information through 
which the individuals can be contacted . The lack of proper contact information as a means for 
verifying the information in the reference letters diminishes their reliability. Furthermore, the 
submitted letters fail to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work has affected 
her field in a major way, has substantially influenced the work of other performing artists or program 
hosts in the field, or otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. In its 2010 decision, the 
court reiterated that our conclusion that that petitioner did not meet the contributions criterion was 
"consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had failed to establish that her "work has influenced, or been recognized by, others in [her] 
field to such a degree that it could be considered contributions of major significance." 
Letters that fail to identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value. 
See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen. , 745 F. Supp. at 17; see also Visinscaia v. Beers,--- F. Supp. 2d ---, 
2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron Int 'I, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony ," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to 
accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable "). The submission of 
reference letters 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. !d. See also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
In the appellate brief, the petitioner does not point to any specific letters that identify her original 
artistic contributions or that explain how her work was of major significance to the field. A passing 
reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. 
US Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009). 
The petitioner further states: 
Beneficiary 's original contribution to traditional Chinese pingju opera was identified by 
Journalist in a news 
report 
published on 
et m January 2003 in a description of beneficiary 's accomplishment at the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 12 
The fact is that evidence not only included supporting letters from peers but also included the 
news report published on chinaopera.net, a public interest internet website dedicated to 
promoting traditional Chinese operas. This news report should qualify as a piece of 
documented evidence. 
As previously mentioned , the petitione submitted a January 8, 2003 article that she alleges was 
posted or and entitled 
j The article stated: 
For many years Pingju opera was limited to the form of singing play. Now [the petitioner] 
performed · with acrobatic fighting contents on the stage of capital for the 
first time. It truly surprised experts and opera fans, rewrote the history of Pingju that was 
lack of acrobatic fighting, and made a great sensation in Beijing. 
The submitted article, however, does not include the URL showing that it was printed from the 
website. Again, the lack of a URL on the document diminishes the reliability of the 
petitioner's evidence. Furthermore, although the author, stated that the petitioner's 
performance "rewrote the history of Pingju" and "made a great sensation in Beijing," the favorable 
online review of one critic is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's work rises to the level of 
a contribution of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, has substantially affected the field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however , does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director 's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
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. Accordingly , the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner asserted that her traditional Chinese opera performances meet this criterion. The 
director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however , does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; Dor v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The petitioner's field is in the performing arts, not the visual arts. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in the 
field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner is a theatrical performer. When she is 
performing on stage or in a competition, she is not displaying her work in the same sense that a 
painter or sculptor displays his or her work in a gallery or museum. The petitioner is performing her 
work, she is not displaying her work. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover 
different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
The interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has 
been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. 
Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible 
pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, 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. 
ThP. netitioner suhmitted a .Tanuanr 2001 "Certificate of Appointment" from the 
stating: "This is to appoint [the petitioner] to be an invited art 
director of our institute." The appointment certificate, however, does not specify the petitioner's duties 
and responsibilities as an "invited art director." In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence 
of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy of an organization or establishment, while a critical role 
is demonstrated by evidence of the petitioner's contributions to the organization or establishment. The 
petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where her 
role as an "invited art director" fit within the overall hierarchy of the The submitted 
evidence fails to differentiate the petitioner from the other employees and staff so as to demonstrate her 
leading role, and does not establish that she contributed to the ' in a way that was significant to 
the institute's success or standing. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
has earned a distinguished reputation. Accordingly , the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
In the appeal brief, the petitioner points to her November 2009 "Certificate of Honor" for being 
among "[t]ht media coverage that 
reported about her, and her appointment as an "invited art director" of the as comparable 
evidence of her extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows for the 
submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation. " Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to her occupation and how the evidence 
submitted is "comparable" to the specific objective evidence required at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
In this instance, the November 2009 "Certificate of Honor" is relevant to the awards criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the media coverage of the petitioner is relevant to the published material 
about the alien criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and her appointment as an "invited art director" 
of the is relevant to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Moreover, the preceding evidence has already been considered under those three regulatory criteria 
and was found insufficient to meet them. Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain 
language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by 
the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For instance, the petitioner has 
specifically claimed eligibility under the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (viii). 
In addition, the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) and (x) also readily apply to 
performing artists. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
As the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence, a final merits determination is unnecessary. However, because the director found that the 
petitioner had met at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we will conduct a final merits determination 
that considers whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Although the director determined that the petitioner had met the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), (vi), and (vii), she concluded that the submitted documentation failed to 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 15 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i), we 
find that the petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition 
of her ~:mmrrl<: Tn :::~rlrlitinn rep:::trrlino th netitioner's awards from the 
_ the awards were limited contestants of a specific age 
group rather than all performers in a specific category. Thus, they cannot establish that the petitioner 
is one of the very few at the top of her field. See 8 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" simply because they are playing in the 
major leagues. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. 
Likewise, it does not follow that the petitioner's receipt of youth awards which exclude veteran 
performers in the field from consideration should necessarily qualify her for approval of an 
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa petition. While we acknowledge that a district 
court's decision is not binding precedent , we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 
(N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine 's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation 
is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS , No. 93 C 3354, 
(N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district, 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 for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." The petitioner has not established that the awards 
she received are indicative of, or consistent with, sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise 
indicating that she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), we 
find that there is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's actual participation as a judge of the work 
of others. Moreover, the nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as 
to whether the submitted evidence is indicative of her recognition beyond those close to her. See 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence documenting the 
reputation of the events that she was appointed to judge. Without evidence demonstrating her 
participation and showing the level of notoriety or stature associated with the events, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's appointments were commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
despite our request for evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original of the Facing the New Era 
book that allegedly included her three articles. In addition, the petitioner did not submit documentary 
evidence demonstrating that is a professional or major trade publication or form 
of major media. Furthermore, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 's articles have 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page \6 
attracted a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vii), as 
previously discussed, the petitioner is a performing artist rather than a visual artist and has not 
created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases. 
In regard to the remaining categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), and (viii), 
the deficiencies in the documentation submitted for those categories have already been addressed. 
The petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language requirements of those categories, 
or that the evidence she submitted 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 
the field. Although the petitioner claims membership in an association, she has not submitted 
reliable evidence of her membership. In addition, she has not established that the organization is one 
that requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts, nor has she established that she belongs to more than one association. 
Furthermore, all of the published material she submitted was deficient in at least one of the 
regulatory requirements such as not including a date, not being about the petitioner, or not having 
been published in major trade publications or other major media. Regarding her artistic 
performances , the petitioner has not established that they were original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Lastly, the petitioner has not shown that she has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner need not demonstrate 
that there is no one more accomplished than herself to qualifY for the classification sought; however, the 
petitioner has not established that her achievements at the time of filing were commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim as a traditional Chinese opera performer and program host, 
or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Moreover, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has garnered sustained national acclaim as a performer or program 
host since her arrival in the United States in April 2010. The submitted 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). 
IV. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must 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 the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 17 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, 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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.