dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Opera Performance

(b)(6)
Date: SEP 2 S 2014 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts 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) of the 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 1-2908) 
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. § I 03.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
jf.~:~~rrative Appeals Offi~ 
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, seeks classification as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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. The director found that the petitioner had met the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), and (vii), but that she had not sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. In the brief, the petitioner asserts that she meets the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (vii), that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) misread the relevant case law, 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) 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 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 
ofthe following evidence": 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
n)_: __ -----
exhibit 7): and 
initial exhibit 4 ); 
(initial evidence exhibit 
(initial evidence 
:initial evidence exhibit 12). 
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 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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 10151 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). 
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 comt 
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 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." !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 determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines 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). 
!d. 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. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 5 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's final merits determination. Counsel asserts: 
The Ninth Circuit only required [USCIS] to count the number of types of evidence provided 
that it believed to meet the requirements of the regulation. 
It did not authorize [USCIS] to make a second determination on the same evidence and 
negate it after it had at the same time determined that the same evidence had met the plain 
language of the regulation. 
* * * 
In our case the USCIS has acknowledged the alien has met 3 of the ten criteria. It should 
approve the petition. It is only an arithmetic question. 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The Kazarian court did, in fact, provide two examples of 
how evidence might be considered under a final merits determination. For example, the court 
accepted that the AAO's analysis of the strictly internal nature of the alien's judging experience 
"might be relevant to a final merits determination ." Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1122. In addition, the 
court accepted that whether an author 's articles have garnered citations in the field "might be 
relevant to the final merits determination of whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field 
of endeavor." ld. at 1121. The Kazarian court acknowledged the USCIS' concerns regarding the 
quality and sufficiency of the evidence and expressly stated that they were legitimate concerns but 
should have been addressed separately after counting the evidence. 
The final merits discussion that appears in the Kazarian decision is a necessary corollary to the 
majority's discussion of how USCIS should consider evidence under the regulatory criteria. In other 
words, the court's conclusion that USCIS cannot raise certain concerns when counting the evidence 
is predicated on the understanding that USCIS can do so at a later stage. To apply only half of the 
court's procedure would effectively negate USCIS' 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), affd , 683 F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012), the court reiterated that simply meeting at 
least three criteria is not sufficient; once the petitioner has met that threshold, "USCIS 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 6 
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. 
he oetitioner submitted a December 1991 certificate from the 
stating that she was "Outstanding Young Performer" and a 
December 1991 award plaque from the 
Competition stating that she was awarded "Outstanding Performance." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a January 1992 article posted at http: // vv'Vv'\~ 
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 :// ww'~ 
to demonstrate that the website's news is indicative of national recognition. 
The petitioner submitted an August 18, 1999 "Certificate of Honors" stating that she "won the 
'Excellent performance award' in the first contest for 
Award' in the sixth The petitioner also submitted a listing of 
numerous winners who received "Excellent Performance Awards" at th 
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:/ website to demonstrate that its nP.w-: i-: inciic~tive of national 
recognition. Lastly, the petitioner submitted a July 21, 1999 article i entitled "The 
' but the article does not mention 
the petitioner's "Excellent performance award " 
The petitioner submitted a January 8, 2003 "Honor::~rv rrt>l'if' ti::~l" -:t::~tinu th::~t -:hP. recf'jveci ":1n 
'Outstanding Performance Award' for the play in thE 
In addition, the petitioner 
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 regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
submitted what she states is an article posted on entioning 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. The petitioner also submitted a (http://ww\i 
"daily visitings (person/million)" report indicating online visits for the website of 
"2'\ R nPt:.;:on/million ." The petitioner, however, did not submit a full English language translation of 
the report as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation 
that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator 's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. Without a full English 
language translation and an explanation of the data, the petitioner has not established that 
news posted or is indicative of national recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a July 19, 2004 certificate stating that she "won the 'Golden Prize' in 
held by [the) China 
' In addition, the petitioner also submitted an article in 
magazine , (Issue Number 308, August 2004) commenting on the 
preceding contest and mentioning that she received "the gold award." Despite our request for 
evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the original published material in 
Accordingly, we cannot assign any weight to the August 2004 article. 
The petitioner submitted an October 2001 certificate stating that she "won the '2nd Prize' in 
held bv the 
~ ~ In addition, the etitioner 
submitted a November 2009 "Certificate of Honor" for being among "[t)he 
The petitioner, however, did not submit any supporting 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the preceding 2nd Prize and Certificate of Honor were 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is 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 response to the director 's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the petitioner submitted a May 15, 
2011 "Certificate of Congressional Recognition" that she received from Dr. . Member of 
at the -Ceremony. The petitioner, however, received her certificate subsequent to the filing of the Form I-
140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 11, 2011. The petitioner must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) , (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' l 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 8 
Comm 'r 1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision 
further provides, adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." ld at 176. 
Accordingly, we cannot consider the May 15, 2011 "Certificate of Congressional Recognition" as 
evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
In light of the above, 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 field s. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
In the al'peal brief, the petitioner asserts that the director's determination regarding her membership 
in the was "arbitrary" and "an abuse of discretion." 
As reviously mentioned, the petitioner submitted her "Membership Certificate o 
[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 
ofHo, 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 [sicJ the on 
September 2001." The submitted letter does not include an address, a telephone number, or any 
other information through which th 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 
petitioner submitted a document that she claims is "a page from the website showing [her] 
achievements." The submitted document, however, has a URL of httpfl l which is not 
for the website. 
The etitioner submitted a webpage that she alleges is "The Article of Incorporation o-
The webpage has a URL of http://w 
4th Articlc-28.html and lists two other identifiers for the The petitioner 
has not established or asserted that 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
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. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from who identifies himself as a member of the 
board of directors of the Neither letter bears an address for the The March 6, 2011 
letter from Mr. does not mention the petitioner or state that she is a member of the 
Instead, Mr comments on the membership requirements stating: "Onlv those whose 
achievements have reached the national level can [] become a member of the 
An artist who applies to become a member of the must have recommendations 
from the provincial association and supported by two curren1 nembers." 
In his September 23, 2011 letter, Mr. states: 
The procedures of joining our association including State level recommendation, invitations 
by two members of our association, and then judged by our Admission Committee for 
acceptance. Only those who have obtained national and above level awards, and who are 
symbols and representatives in his/her performing field are being finally selected to join. In 
addition to the above procedures, our association puts the most emphasis on member's 
national and international accomplishments in his/her field of endeavor. 
The March 6, 2011 and September 23, 2011 letters from Mr. are not consistent in their 
description of the membership requirements. 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. In addition, the 
letters from Mr. do not establish that members' achievements are judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Although Mr. September 23, 2011 letter asserts that the: accepted the petitioner as a 
member, the misspelling of her "Membership Certificate of ' and 
her failure to submit the original certificate despite our request cast doubts on the reliability of all the 
evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion. The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation requires "membership in associations" in the plural. 
The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act. Significantly, not all ofthe criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded 
in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service 
on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that 
evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. 
USCJS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158, 2008 WL 9398947, *1 , *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 2008); Snapnames .com Inc. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
v. Chertoff, No. CV06-65, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent 
degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic 
credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner had established that her membership meets the 
elements of this regulatory criterion, which she has not, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the petitioner's membership in more than one 
association requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
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 evidence that many newspapers, 
magazines have reported [the petitioner]." 
The petitioner submitted a January 8, 2003 article about her that she states was posted on 
and entitled 
The submitted document, however, does not mclude the UKL 
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 . The petitioner also submitted a 
---- · "daily visitings (person/million)" report indicating online visits for 
the website of "25.8 person/million." The petitioner, however, did not submit a full 
English language translation of the report as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Without a full English language translation and an explanation of the data, the 
petitioner has not established that 1et is a major trade publication or a form of major 
media . 
The petitioner submitted an miicle about her in magazine (Issue Number 510, 
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 etitioner did not submit evidence such as 
objective circulation figures showing tha is a major trade publication or a form of 
major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles in 
articles entitled 
, but only two 
'and 
were accompanied by certified English language 
translations. The date of the latter article, however, was not provided and that material does not 
relate to the petitioner's work as a performer. Without certified English language translations for the 
remaining articles, the petitioner has not established that the other articles i and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
were about her and related to her work as a performer. See id. Regardless, 
there is no circulation evidence showing that are maJor 
media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in 
August 2004) entitled 
nagazine, (Issue Number 308, 
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 of 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). The petitioner also submitted a webpage listing the "numbers of publication" of 
but she did not submit a full English language translation of the webpage as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover the petitioner did not submit circulation evidence 
showing the distribution of relative to other Chinese entertainment 
publications to demonstrate that the magazine is a major trade publication or a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted photographs that she asserts show her "being interviewed by Mr. 
anchor 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 submitted information from stating 
that the network has "11 stations and a national audience of 1.3 billion" and a letter from 
stating that the interview aired on _ 
11, 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. 
The petitioner submitted an August 2 7, 201 0 article about her in 
petitioner l 
-
entitled "[The 
In response to the director's NOID, the petitioner submitted an August 26, 2010 
letter from the President and Editor-in-Chief o asserting that his newspaper "is a 
popular publication with a wide circulation that covers the entire United States." USCIS, however, 
need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, qff'd, 317 Fed. 
Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (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). There is no objective circulation 
evidence showing that Sino-US. Weekly is a form of major media in the United States or any other 
country. 
The netitioner's resnonse to the director's NOID included a September 30, 2011 article about her in 
(Los Angeles, Southern California Edition) 
entitled 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The article, however, was published subsequent to the filing ofthe Form I-140 petition on April 
11, 2011. Again, the petitioner must establish her eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly , we cannot consider the 
material published in September 2011 as evidence to establish the petitioner 's eligibility at the time of 
filing. 
In light ofthe 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 qf specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The director found that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following: 
1. A May 18, 2007 certificate stating: "This is to certify that you have been appointment [sic] 
by the to be a 
member of the judging committee forth · and 
2. A January 2001 "Certificate of Appointment" from the ~ 
stating: "This is to appoint [the petitioner] to be an invited art director of 
our institute." 
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 committee and institute, there is no documentary evidence ofher actual participation as a judge. 
Submitting certificates stating that the petitioner was appointed as a judge or an art director without 
evidence demonstrating her actual participation is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. 
The remaining evidence, however, supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this 
regulatory criterion. The petitioners' initial evidence also included the following: 
1. A June 8, 2007 Certificate of Appointment stating: "This is to certify that you have been 
apiJointment [sic] by the 
to be a member of the panel of judging committee for the Sixth 
'· 
and 
2. A June 2007 letter from the 
stating: "We are greatly honoured to invite you to act as a member of the panel 
of judging committee for the Sixth 
The preceding appointment certificate and invitation letter were not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner actually participated as a judge after being appointed and invited to serve on the committee. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
However. in resoonse to the director's NOID, the petitioner submitted a September 19, 2011 letter 
from the rrmfirrnina th::~t th~ 
petitioner participated as a judge for the Sixth " 
in 2007. Accordingly , the petitioner has 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: 
Counsel states that the petitioner met this criterion based mostly on the opinion of one 
reporter, and during one performance, and that the petitioner has . . . made an original 
contribution of major significance to the field. Recognition or success within the field does 
not demonstrate eligibility under this criterion as recognition and success are not contingent 
upon originality or significant impacts on the field. Counsel does not identify how 
combining "acrobatic fighting" with Pingju opera made an original contribution of major 
significance beyond her local recognition or success and we find no corroborating evidence 
in the record to support counsel's assertion. Without documentary evidence to support the 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); .Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
* * * 
Finally, letters of support alone are not sufficient to meet this criterion. . . . Letters solicited 
... in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than the preexisting, independent 
evidence one would expect to find where an individual has made original contributions of 
major significance. 
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 
in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the etitioner points to the January 8, 2003 "media report" that she alleges was posted on 
and entitled 
The article stated: 
For many years Pingju opera was limited to the form of singing play. Now [the petitioner] 
perfmmec with acrobatic fighting contents on the stage of capital for the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
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. 
In addition, the petitioner states that she "provided expert opinions in the form of recommendation 
letters regarding [the petitioner's] original contribution." 
In his September 23, 2011 letter, Mr :;tated: 
Although Mr. asserts that the petitioner was 
and that her movements "have become classical examples for the young 
performers to learn and study," he does not specifically identify any performing arts schools that are 
teaching her artistic techniques . There is no documentary evidence showing that her movements such 
as 
have affected the field of in a major way, have drawn record audiences for an 
extended period of time, or have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. See Visinscaia v. Beers , --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). In addition, M1 comments that the 
petitioner is "one of the few very top artists in Pingju field," but merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not 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 Associat es, Inc. 
v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1 , *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
a traditional Chinese opera performer, choreographer, and writer who does not identify his 
address, stated: 
According to my professional background and my understanding of the Chinese traditional 
opera, [the petitioner] is one of the top performers at the professional level of the Chinese 
traditional opera art. She's achieved splendid results in her art field. Her appearances in the 
plays are pretty and refreshing , and she's well versed in both polite letters and martial arts. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 15 
She was a rare talented performer in Chinese opera circle especially for her great basic skills 
of martial arts. She's won national prizes many times. 
Mr. comments that the petitioner is a top performer, that she has achieved splendid results, that she 
has performed admirably, and that she possesses rare talent and "great basic skills." It is not enough, 
however, to be a talented performer and to have others attest to that talent. An individual must have 
demonstrably impacted her field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. There is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner 's perfom1ances have affected traditional Chinese opera styles, 
have substantially influenced the work of other performers, or have otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, Mr. mentions that the petitioner has 
"won national prizes many times." The petitioner's prizes were previously addressed under the 
category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence relating to or even meeting the prizes and 
awards criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. The regulatory 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for prizes and 
original contributions of major significance , USCIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable . To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
President of the California, stated: 
[The petitioner] was the first one to perform acrobatic fighting in Pingju Opera. Thereafter 
Pingju can express ancient warfare stories on stage. 
This is her original contribution of major significance to the Art of Pingju. Before this, 
Pingju 's performance consisted of only singing and speaking. [The petitioner] has perfectly 
combined singing and acrobatic fighting in her performance . Her work has been unusually 
influential in Pingju field. 
Ms. asserts the petitioner "was the first one to perform acrobatic fighting in Pingju Opera" and 
that "her work has been unusually influential in Pingju field." Ms. however, does not provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work has affected performances outside of her theatrical 
troupe or otherwise constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990) . 
. Director, stated: 
Because of her original performance, [the petitioner] had brought a fresh breath of air into Pingju 
stage. Because of her, there are Pingju that carries out war fair [sic]. [The petitioner's] 
has become a classical Pingju composition in China. [The petitioner 's] original 
addition has made historical contribution to Chinese Pingju. 
Mr. _ asserts that has become a classical Pingju composition in China" and 
that the petitioner "has made historical contribution to Chinese Pingju." Mr however, fails to 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner 's original work has affected her tleld in a major way, 
has substantially influenced the work of other performing artists, or otherwise constitutes original 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
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 at 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. 
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, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 
(upholding users, decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in 
the field); Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 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; users 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"). 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 failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
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 tht 
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. 
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 of the display of the alien 's work in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
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. 
The petitioner submitted a January 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 tht: in a way that was significant to 
the institute's success or standing. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
ms earned a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
B. 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 fow1d that the 
petitioner had met at least three categories of evidence, 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act; 8 
C.F .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.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), and (vii), he concluded that the submitted documentation failed to demonstrate the 
petitioner's 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)(i), we 
find that the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence demonstrating the national or 
intP.m::~tion::~l rP.mo-nition of her awards. n addition. re2:ardin2: the petitioner's awards from the 
the awards were limited to 
younger contestants rather than older, more experienced performers. 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." 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." In the appellate brief, the petitioner points to the 
May 15, 2011 "Certificate of Congressional Recognition " that she received from Congresswoman 
Again, the petitioner received her certificate subsequent to the filing of the Form I-140 petition 
on April 11, 2011. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l) , (12); Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, we cannot consider the 
May 15, 2011 "Certificate of Congressional Recognition " as evidence to establish the petitioner 's 
eligibility at the time of filing. 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 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)(iv), the 
netitioner submitted a Seotember 19, 2011 letter from the 
stating: "The 'Expert Award' is the highest award in the Chinese 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
television and radio broadcasting field. The award is a national level competition and has immense 
influence in Chinese Society, and is widely known nationally and internationally." The petitioner, 
however, did not submit any documentary evidence (such as national media coverage of tht: 
~ n 2007) to 
support the claims. Going on record without supporting documentary ev1 ence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm' r 
1972)). If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Without further evidence demonstratin g the level of notoriety or stature associated with the 2007 
," we - -
cannot conclude that the petitioner's participation was commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In 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. 
With regard to the remaining categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), 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. With respect to the petitioner 's authorship, she has not shown that her 
articles were in a professional or major trade publication or form of major media. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
"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 
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.