dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Opera

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data deleted to 
~ash~&ton, DC 20529-2690 
prevent clearly unwarranted U.S. Citizenship 
invasion of personal privacy 
 and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG (j 5 2009 
- 7- 
LIN 07 098 51521 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
hlbe d ~li 
John F. Grissom 
i': 
IV~cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Specifically, in reaching this conclusion, the director concluded that the petitioner 
failed to meet three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on February 12, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a performer in Chinese opera. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
To hlfill this criterion, the petitioner initially submitted the following evidence: 
1. A letter from the White House, dated August 31, 2001, and one from Former Senator Hillary 
Clinton, dated July 24, 2001, both of which congratulated the petitioner as a recipient of a 
2001 National Heritage Fellowship of the National Endowment for the Arts; 
2. A certificate of award for the petitioner's outstanding performance and contribution to the 
2006 Peking Opera Festival, dated October 29,2006; 
3. An award for the petitioner's participation in "The Spider Withes" on October 28,2006; 
4. A certificate of award for the petitioner's participation in the Chinese Cultural Festival New 
York in 2006; 
5. A first prize award from the Ministry of Culture at the National Youth Chinese Opera 
Competition, dated January 2001 ; 
6. A "Notice Concerning Participating in National Youth Chinese Opera Competition" 
indicating that 370 actors were selected and recommended by cultural departments and 
bureaus of local government to participate and that 140 final contestants were decided by the 
Ministry of Culture; 
7. A certificate of award from China Central Television ("CCTV") for the "Excellent 
Performance Prize" at the 2001 Hayaoliu Cup Chinese National Peking Opera Artists 
Television Performance Competition; 
8. A certificate of award for the Silver Prize at the 5th China National Peking Opera Artists 
Television Performance Competition held by CCTV, dated October 2005; 
9. A certificate of award for the "Best Performance Prize" at provincial "Five No. 1" Arts 
Project Competition, dated December 1996; and 
Page 4 
10. A certificate of award for the "Encouraging Prize" at the Beijing Hong Xuefeng Youth 
Chinese Opera Competition, dated May 1998. 
In Response to the Request for Information ("RFE"), dated March 3 1, 2008, the petitioner provided 
the original award in item 2. On appeal, item 5 was resubmitted with a corrected translation. Items 
7 and 8 were also provided again on appeal. In addition, a page from China's Ministry of Culture 
website was submitted, indicating that its responsibilities included "promoting various types of art, 
and managing national cultural events." An internet printout from CCTV7s website was also 
provided that said its channel is the "main channel of information for the whole country." The 
petitioner also submitted a document from China's Ministry of Culture, dated April 26, 2008, 
regarding the National Excellent Youth Peking Opera Performers Competition in 2001 (item 5), 
which explained that the ages of the participants ranged fiom 18 to 40 years old from various 
provinces of China and confirmed the petitioner's receipt of first prize. With regard to the same 
competition, an internet printout from www.cavtv.com was provided that indicated 140 participants 
were selected by a panel of experts from 370 professional Peking Opera performers. The petitioner 
also produced a document, dated April 21, 2008, from CCTV regarding the 5th National Youth 
Peking Opera Performers Competition (item 8). The document indicated the following about the 
competition: 
The age of the candidate was restricted within 40 years old. In China, titles of the 
artists are divided into two categories based on agelgeneration instead of level of art. 
The "young/youth" artists are actually of the same attainments as the older generation 
of artists. The word "young/youth" does not purport their level of skill but simply 
emphasize their generation relative to the older generation artists. This is to show 
respect to the older generation artists. 
Another web page was provided from http://cflac.ora.cn, dated July 16, 2008, with a partial 
translation of the pertinent paragraph which mentioned that "since CCTV held the 'National Youth 
Peking Opera Performers Competition' in 1987 for the very first time; it has already been so 
successful five times." The petitioner also submitted a news report fiom the World Journal, dated 
August 27, 2008, which detailed the high ratings and advertising income that CCTV received during 
the Olympic Games. Lastly, the petitioner described the process of selecting participants for items 7 
and 8 in his own affidavit that he submitted. The petitioner's affidavit attested to CCTV having held 
only five "National Youth Peking Opera Performers Competitions" for professional Peking Opera 
performers and that to his knowledge the "participants were recommended by the key theatres or 
troupes, and then were filtered through competitions held by each provincial TV station." 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. We concur with the 
director's finding that there is no evidence showing that these prizes constitute nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the petitioner's field. More specifically, for items 
l,2, 3,4, 7, 8,9, and 10, the petitioner failed to submit any additional evidence, other than the award 
or certificate, to demonstrate that these certificates represent nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes, such as supporting evidence showing the prestige associated with receiving the awards or 
some other evidence consistent with national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. Moreover, the record even lacks general 
information about the competitions (such as the award criteria, the area from where participants were 
drawn, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of recognition). 
Although the petitioner provided information regarding CCTV and the competitions referred to in items 
7 and 8, the evidence still failed to address any of the above-referenced issues. Rather, the additional 
information provided on appeal dealt with the number of competitions CCTV has held, the age of the 
competitors and the importance of CCTV in China. The petitioner did attempt to provide further 
evidence regarding the selection process for items 7 and 8 through his own affidavit. However, the 
information contained in his affidavit was very vague, not definitive about the process, e.g. "to the 
knowledge of the petitioner," and did not represent objective independent evidence. In addition, as 
noted by the director in his decision, we agree that items 2, 3, and 4 appear to be solely participation 
certificates, rather than prizes or awards. 
Moreover, with regard to the competition referred to in Item 5, additional information was provided 
in item 6 and on appeal addressing the petitioner's selection as a final contestant, and then as a first 
prize winner, from 370 professional actors by the Ministry of Culture. Additional information was 
also provided regarding China's Ministry of Culture, however the information was very general and 
failed to demonstrate that the award was a recognized national or international award. Nonetheless, 
even if the AAO found this award to be a nationally recognized award for excellence in the 
petitioner's field, this award was given to the petitioner 6 years prior to him filing this application. 
As such, this award would not exemplify sustained acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted a membership certificate for the Chinese Dramatists Association 
("CDA") indicating its issue on May 2000 and the petitioner's working unit as Peking Opera Troupe 
of Beijing. The petitioner also provided a translation of a document entitled "Introduction to China 
Dramatists Association" without a source or date. This "Introduction" stated that the CDA is an 
"elite national group of more than 10,000 members" and that membership is "judged by recognized 
Page 6 
international experts in their discipline or fields." Further, it indicated that members must have solid 
basic skills, outstanding performance ability, have won "many times national, provincial or local 
recognized prizes" and have been dedicated to an arts career for at least 10 years. Moreover, this 
document described the election to membership as being "subject to a 213 Membership Committee, 
which must subsequently be approved, by a 213 vote of the Board of Director." The petitioner also 
provided a membership certificate for the Helongjiang Province's Dramatist Association indicating 
its issue on December 1996 and the petitioner's working unit as Helongjiang Province's Peking 
Opera Troupe. The petitioner provided a translation from the Helongjiang Liter-Arts Cycles 
Association, dated October 2 1, 2001, which listed the same membership requirements as required by 
the CDA with almost identical language and in the same order. In addition, the petitioner provided a 
professional rank certificate from the Beijing High Level Professional Rank Evaluation Committee, 
dated December 5, 2005, indicating that the petitioner's professional rank is a Class-2 Performer. 
The petitioner also provided a translation "Notice Concerning Year Examine and Appraisal 
Professional and Technical Titles," dated July 12, 2001. The petitioner also provided the following 
three letters of appointment; one appointment was to the Evaluation Committee of "Yanjin Cup" 
National Peking Opera Competition, dated December 2000, another appointment was as the Arts 
Consultant of "Children's Peking & Kunju Opera Arts Troupe" of Beijing City's Cultural Bureau, 
dated June 2003 and one as the Artistic Consultant with the Beijing Chinese Opera. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated April 28, 2008, from the Chinese 
Theatre Association ("CTA") confirming the petitioner's membership, as well as an internet printout 
from the CTA's Website, indicating that the organization had approximately 12,700 members until 
the end of 2005. On appeal, the petitioner provided a corrected translation for the document 
provided by the Heilongjiang Federation of Literary and Art Circles, dated October 21, 2001, which 
essentially contained the same information. The petitioner also submitted a certificate of his 
membership in the CTA, as requested by the director in his decision, which indicated he was 
admitted as a member in May of 2000. The petitioner also provided a certificate from the CTA, 
dated August 26, 2008, which stated that a candidate for membership must be a member of a 
provincial theatre association, have gained multiple nationally recognized awards and enjoy a high 
reputation and achievement in the field of theatre. This certificate from CTA then explained that 
once a candidate has met those requirements, a group of theatre experts discussed and decided 
whether a candidate should be admitted to membership. 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that outstanding achievements are 
required for membership in any of the organizations. We agree and find that the record lacks 
evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that any of the 
groups require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. While the petitioner provided 
membership requirements for CDA and for the Helongjiang Province's Dramatist Association, the 
requirements for both associations contain almost identical requirements and wording, and also 
closely resemble the wording of in USCIS regulations. Moreover, the translation accompanying the 
CDA membership requirements fails to indicate a source. Despite the director's questioning of these 
documents and stating the need for additional documentation, the petitioner provided no new 
evidence to ameliorate them in response to the RFE or on appeal. Further, it is noted that the CDA 
document indicated that its organization had 10,000 members. 
 An organization with 10,000 
members does not suggest exclusivity or restrictive requirements that a candidate be outstanding. 
Likewise, the CTA website indicated its organization had 12,700 members, which similarly would 
not be commensurate to meet this highly restrictive classification. Moreover, there was no evidence 
regarding the nature of the petitioner's appointments, or if such appointments would be consistent 
with membership in an association. The record additionally lacks evidence demonstrating that 
membershp is judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. While the CTA 
certificate indicates "a group of theatre experts" ultimately decide on membership, there is no 
specific discussion as to the names of these experts or what qualifies them as experts. 
Finally, the petitioner's submission of his Class-2 Performer Intermediate Professional Rank certificate 
also fails to provide support for this criterion. According to the materials submitted, promotions to 
middle and high ranks are awarded after a "rigorous examination and appraisal, recommended by each 
unit to bureau office leading group to check overall performance, and then refer the matter to 
adjudicator group." (Grammar as it appears in the translation.) Those seeking a high rank must 
"exceed the standards for five years in succession." Those reaching or exceeding "the standards7' are 
qualified for continuous employment. Finally, rank appears to relate to a wage scale. The petitioner 
does not explain how his professional rank constitutes a "membership." 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which class2Jcution is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or broadcast, 
or from a publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot 
comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the Nav York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but 
would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
papers.1 
The petitioner initially submitted as evidence: 
1. An "article" without a title or author from a website, www.ce.cn, dated February 2, 2007, 
with a picture of the petitioner and a reference to the petitioner as a "makeup man, the Peking 
Opera performing artist;" 
I 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
2. An "article" without a title or author fi-om a website, http://peopledaily.com, dated February 
3, 2007, with the same picture of the petitioner as in item 1, but with no caption mentioning 
his name but merely referencing him as an "artist of Beijing Opera;" 
3. An "article" without a title or author from a website, http://english.people.com, dated 
December 5, 2006, with a picture of the petitioner that only generally referred to him as a 
Chinese Beijing Opera artist; 
4. A partial article entitled, "Minister on Chinese Culture Today," without an author, from a 
website, www.china.org, dated December 5, 2006, which does not even mention the 
petitioner; 
5. A printout from the John F. Kennedy Center's website which indicates there is a Festival of 
China at the Kennedy Center in October of 2005, without an author, which does not mention 
the petitioner; 
6. A partial article from the New York Times website entitled, "As China Raises Its Arts Profile, 
Officials Try to Catch Up," written by Lynette Clemetson, dated July 18, 2005, which does 
not mention the petitioner; 
7. A partial article from the New York Times website entitled, "On the Potomac, a Cultural 
Evolution," written by Lynette Clemetson, dated October 1, 2005, which does not mention 
the petitioner; 
8. A partial article fi-om htt~://news.xinhuanet.com entitled, "Hu, Bush hail opening of Festival 
of China in US," dated October 1, 2005, without an author, which does not mention the 
petitioner; 
9. A partial article from http://english.cri.cn entitled, "Hu, Bush Welcome Opening of China 
Festival," without an author, dated November 19, 2005, which does not mention the 
petitioner; 
10. A partial article from www.hi~hbeam.com entitled, "Chinese, US presidents hail opening of 
Festival of China in Washington," without an author, dated October 2, 2005, which does not 
mention the petitioner; 
11. An article from the Washington Post website entitled, "Two Countries on the Potomac," 
written by Jacqueline Trescott, dated March 2,2005, which does not mention the petitioner; 
12. An "article" from www.chinanews.com entitled, "Peking Opera News," without a certified 
translation, author or date, which has a picture of the petitioner with a caption that refers to 
him as a leading performer; 
13. An article from www.dongdon,~gian~.com entitled, "The First Modem Opera Performance in 
New York won highly appreciation," that was not completely translated, without a date or 
author, which mentions the petitioner only to state his role in the opera; 
14. The same article and translation from item 13 fi-om a different website, www.sinovision.net, 
which was also not completely translated, was without a date or author, and was not about 
the petitioner; 
15. The same article and translation from item 13 and 14 from a different website, 
www.shidanguocui.com, which was also not completely translated, was without author and 
was not about the petitioner, but was dated December 30,2006; 
16. The same article and translation from item 13, 14 and 15 from a different source, World 
Journal, which was also not completely translated, was without an author and was not about 
the petitioner, but was dated December 29,2006; 
17. An article entitled, "The Grand Opening of Lincoln Center Out of Doors Festival," from Sing 
Tao Daily, without an author, dated August 24, 2006, which only mentions the petitioner to 
state in which production he performed; 
18. An article entitled, "The first-class cast of American 6th Peking Opera Arts Festival 
performed 'The Monkey King fights the White-Bone Demon Three Times,' winning highly 
appreciation in New York," from Ming Pao Daily News, without an author, dated October 5, 
2006, with a partial translation that only mentioned the petitioner to state his role in the 
performance; 
19. The same article as item 17 from a different source, World Journal, without an author, dated 
August 24, 2006, which only mentions the petitioner to state in which production he 
performed; 
20. The same article and translation from item 13, 14, 15, and 16 from a different source, The 
China Press, which was also not completely translated and was not about the petitioner, but 
was dated December 28,2006 and written by Zhao Yajun; 
21. The same article as in item 17 and 19 entitled, "Chinese Opera presented at Lincoln Center 
Out of Doors Festival," with a different source, The China Press, without an author, dated 
August 24, 2006, which only mentions the petitioner to state in which production he 
performed; 
22. A condensed article, which was the same one as in items 17, 19 and 21, from the World 
Journal entitled "Lincoln Center From Chinatown With Love," without an author, dated 
August 26,2006, which only briefly mentions the petitioner; 
23. An article from Ming Pao Daily entitled, "The funny clown show on Chinese Peking opera 
festival," without an author, dated October 30, 2006, which only mentions the petitioner's 
name in a caption for a photograph referring to him as a leading actor; 
24. An advertisement or announcement from the World Journal entitled, "The Qishufang Peking 
Opera Company held the 6th Chinese Peking Opera Arts Festival," dated October 26, 2006, 
without an author and which only listed the petitioner as a major performer; 
25. A picture from the World Journal, dated December 18 without a year and without an author, 
title or certified translation, which did not mention the petitioner's name but his photograph 
was in the paper; 
26. An article from the World Journal entitled, "The Oriental Opera and Arts Company present 
famous Peking Opera productions in appreciating the American Audience," without an 
author, dated December 6, 2006, which contains only a partial translation and only briefly 
mentions the petitioner's name; 
27. An article from the Beijing Evening News entitled, "The Grand Opening in memorizing of 
the 9oth Birthday Party of Master Qui Shengrong," without an author or full translation of the 
article, dated September 2, 2005, which only mentioned the performance in which the 
petitioner participated; 
28. An article from The China Press entitled, "The Grand Chinese Opera Performance in New 
York at Christmas for memorizing 40 years' Modem Peking Opera," without an author or a 
full translation, dated December 8, 2006, which only briefly mentioned the petitioner's name 
in conjunction with his role in the performance; 
29. The same article as in item 28 but from a different paper, The SinoAmerican Times, without 
an author or full translation, dated December 8,2006; 
Page 10 
30. An article from The China Press entitled, "The Kunqu Society presents excellent 
performance on lgth," without an author, dated November 11, 2006, which mentions the 
petitioner to identify what roles he will have in the performances; 
3 1. A condensed form of the article in item 30 in a different paper, World Journal, entitled, "The 
Excellent Yearly Performance presented by The Kunqu Society," without an author, dated 
November 7, 2006, which only briefly mentions the petitioner in conjunction with the roles 
he will perform; 
32. Almost the same article as in items 30 and 3 1 from the World Journal, entitled "The Kunqu 
Society presents excellent performance on 1 gth," without an author, dated November 16, 
2008, which only briefly mentions the petitioner; and 
33. An article from the World Journal, entitled "The Kunqu Society presents excellent 
performance, two generations perform together," without an author, dated November 4, 
2006, which only briefly mentions the petitioner's role in performance. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner provided the following as evidence: 
34. A DVD which the petitioner purports deals with his performances in New York and China 
with other actors; 
35. An article fiom The China Press entitled, "No. 8 Beijing Opera Festival Performs in Public 
on May 2 in New York University Theatre," without an author, dated April 16,2008; 
36. An article from The China Press entitled, "The Shang Discipline Art Conquered New York 
Audience," without an author, dated July 11, 2007, which only briefly mentioned the 
petitioner to indicate his role in the performance; and 
37. An article fiom the World Journal entitled, "Ballet Beijing Opera Troupe Rehearsal Won 
Cheering," without an author, dated December 18, 2009, which only briefly mentions the 
petitioner and which appears to only be a partial translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted the following as evidence to meet this criterion: 
38. The same article as in item 35, with a slightly different translation, yet still no author was 
provided; 
39. An internet printout from the website of The China Press, which explained that the paper is 
"issued in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco" and "sold to many cities with large 
Chinese populations in America;" 
40. Previously submitted articles, but this time they were submitted without translations; and 
41. Item 34 was resubmitted, a DVD of a story that CNN covered regarding a performance at the 
American Museum of Natural History, accompanied by pictures taken at the event which 
were not published but appeared to be personal photographs of the petitioner. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion, and we concur with his decision. 
Among many other deficiencies noted by the director, the director found that none of the articles 
initially submitted were primarily about the petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." We agree, and add that there was only one 
article after a review of the entire record, item 35 (38), which was provided that was about the 
petitioner. All the other articles, if the petitioner was mentioned at all, just briefly stated the petitioner's 
role in a performance that was being covered by the publication or captioned his name under a 
photograph. Nonetheless, item 35 (38), as well as items 36 and 37, postdate the date of filing the 
petition. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
these articles in the proceeding. It is also noted that the evidence provided in item 35 (38) is 
deficient, and will be discussed in further detail below, insofar as the petitioner failed to provide the 
author's name and to demonstrate that the publication which contained the article could be 
considered a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In addition, this criterion specifically requires that the evidence submitted contains a title, date, author 
and translation, if necessary. However, the petitioner failed to provide a title for items 1, 2, 3, and 25. 
Likewise, dates were omitted in items 12, 13 and 14. The petitioner also did not submit the name of the 
author for the evidence submitted in items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2 1, 22, 
23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31, 32, 33,35,36,37 and 38. Moreover, many of the articles, including 
items 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 37, were not accompanied by complete 
translations as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3) and instead only partial translations were 
provided.2 Without complete translations, the actual content of the articles cannot be ascertained. 
The petitioner additionally provided evidence, e.g., items 12 and 25, without certified translations. 
The publication of photographs or the broadcast of radio or television interviews do not qualify the 
petitioner under this criterion. The specific regulatory requirements reference published written work 
instead of visual or audio work. As such, the photographs in items 1, 2, and 3, without an actual 
accompanying article, do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. Regardless, the petitioner was 
not even mentioned by name in any of the captions underneath the photograph except for one. 
Additionally, as a television interview also does not meet the plain language of this regulation, the 
evidence contained in item 34 (41) cannot satisfy this criterion either. 
As noted by the director, many of the articles also contain identical content but were featured in 
different sources. For example, items 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, items 17, 19, 21, 22, items 28 and 29, and 
items 3 1, 32, 33, use the exact same wording for each of these four articles. This seems to suggest 
that the articles are actually press releases. Because press releases are promotional materials 
released by the entity or agent producing the performances, such evidence would not satisfy this 
criterion. 
Finally, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that any of the preceding articles 
submitted by the petitioner were printed in professional or major trade publications or some other form 
of major media. Many of the articles appear in regional papers rather than nationally or internationally 
circulated publications. Regional coverage or coverage in a publication read by only a small ethnic 
segment of a country's total population is not evidence of national or international acclaim. On 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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 fkom the foreign language into English. 
appeal, an internet printout from the website of The China Press, which explained that the paper is 
"issued in Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco" and "sold to many cities with large Chinese 
populations in America" (item 39) was submitted. However, this evidence failed to show that The 
China Press is a widely circulated publication in America or China. Moreover, no evidence about 
the other sources or the reliability of their contents was provided. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 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 speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for top 
opera performers is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for youth or novices. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to satisfy this criterion. However, the petitioner did provide a 
letter of appointment to the Evaluation Committee of "Yanjin Cup" National Peking Opera 
Competition, dated December 2000, in order to show his membership in an organization as 
previously discussed. As such, in his WE, the director requested hrther information regarding the 
petitioner's appointment to determine whether it involved judging the work of others. However, no 
new evidence was provided in response to the RFE for this criterion. As such, the director found 
that the petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a certificate of engagement by CCTV indicating that CCTV 
hired the petitioner as judge of the "Yanjing Cup National Amateurish Peking Opera Competition in 
the final," dated December 2000. The petitioner also provided another certificate from CCTV, dated 
August 25, 2008, which explained that the Yanjing Cup involved "participants from all over the 
country" who were "strictly filtered by selective trials" at the local level and that "only the top 
participants of each province were qualified for the national final." Further, the certificate indicated 
that the judges were required to be "experts of high authority in the field of Peking Opera" and 
"through prudent discussion, the organizing committee of the competition decided to invite" the 
petitioner. It also stated that the "panel was constituted by nationally famous Peking Opera 
performers and senior experts." 
The additional evidence provided on appeal appears to classify the Yanjing Cup as an amateur 
competition, as witnessed in the evidence by the title of the competition. As stated above, judging a 
competition for novices has less probative value than judging a competition for professionals. 
Moreover, while information was provided regarding the single instance the petitioner was selected 
as a judge, it was very general and failed to specifically provide the requirements necessary to 
become a judge. As a result, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige associated 
with judging the Yanjing Cup, such as the performers the petitioner evaluated andlor their levels of 
expertise or other evidence of his judging that is indicative of this highly restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner did not claim this criterion initially or in response to the RFE. However, on appeal 
the petitioner argued that this criterion applied to him and offered several letters of recommendation, 
in an attempt to satisfy this criterion. The letters provided discuss the petitioner's talent as a 
performer, his training, and examples of where he has performed. However, they fail to demonstrate 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The letters include no 
substantive discussion as to which of the petitioner's specific artistic achievements rise to the level 
of original contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the petitioner's artistic talent is admired by those offering letters of support, there is 
no evidence demonstrating that his work has had major significance in the field. For example, the 
record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other performers nationally or 
internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
Additionally, the petitioner provided posters, brochures and playbills from lectures and 
performances in which he has participated. This evidence, however, also fails to show that the 
petitioner's participation in these performances represent contributions of major significance. 
Further, most of this evidence was dated after the petitioner's application was filed. As a petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing, this postdated evidence cannot be considered. 8 C.F.R. 
$9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner also resubmitted various awards, which were previously considered under the awards 
criterion. In addition, a new award from the Social Security Administration was provided. 
However, this award also postdates the filing of the application. Nonetheless, none of these awards 
demonstrate that the petitioner made a contribution of major significance. Likewise, articles were 
submitted that also failed to show that the petitioner made a specific contribution of major 
significance to his field. For example, a partial translation from a periodical, Anhui New Theatre, 
indicates that "it is so difficult to find [even] one 'Jing (the painted face)."' However, this article, as 
well the other evidence provided, does not specifically show the petitioner's contribution of major 
significance as a Jing or as an opera performer. 
As such, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner did not submit any identifiable evidence regarding this criterion initially or in 
response to the RFE. In his decision, the director also indicated that this criterion was not claimed 
and that the record does not establish eligibility for this criterion. Nonetheless, on appeal, the 
petitioner argues the following evidence demonstrates the display of his work at artistic exhibitions 
or showcases: 
1. A brochure of the Performance in Memory of the Great Peking Opera Master Qui for his 9oth 
birthday, without a translation of the document; 
2. A brochure of a performance in Japan, without a translation of the document; 
3. A poster of a performance in Germany, without a translation of the document; 
4. A brochure for the Famous Artists and Plays Special Performance at the Sidney Opera 
House, without a translation for the sections not in English; and 
5. A brochure of the 12" Anniversary Annual Show of Les Ballets de 170pera Chinois de New 
York, ~nc.~ 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors 
and painters) rather than for than for performing artists such as the petitioner. It is inherent to the 
performing arts to perform. Therefore, not every performance is a showcase or exhibition of the 
work of every performer. Without evidence that the petitioner's performances were comparable to 
the exclusive artistic showcases that might serve to meet this criterion for a visual artist, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
In addition to the record lacking any evidence to show that these performances were comparable to 
exclusive artistic showcases, the petitioner also failed to provide translations for items 1,2,3, and 4. As 
previously stated, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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. Without such translations, we cannot 
verify the evidence is what it purports to be. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
3 
 The name of the opera on the brochure is misspelled as "I'Opera," rather than "170pera." 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence for this criterion initially or in response to the WE. As a 
result, the director did not find that the petitioner fulfilled this criterion. On appeal, however, the 
petitioner provided the following evidence: 
1. A page from a website, www.bio.com, that provides a brief introduction to the Peking Opera 
Theatre of Beijing, which indicates that this opera is the biggest one in China; 
2. A certificate of the petitioner's employment in the Peking Opera Theatre of Beijing, issued 
on October 10,2005; 
3. A brochure of performances of Troupe No. 1 of the Peking Opera Theatre in Beijing with a 
partial translation, which again expresses that the Peking Opera Theatre in Beijing is the 
largest troupe in China and represents excellence and high quality; 
4. A recommendation letter from the President of the Peking Opera Theatre in Beijing, dated 
November 25, 2006, which indicates he was appointed as a "main performer in Troupe No. 
1;" and 
5. A letter from the Director of the Beijing Ministry of Culture, undated, congratulating the 
Peking Opera Theatre for its opportunity to tour five European countries. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such significance 
that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Although the petitioner provides evidence of his involvement 
within the Peking Opera Theatre in Beijing, he fails to show that such involvement is commensurate 
with a leading or critical role. Although item 4 points out that the petitioner was a "main 
performer," this evidence still fails to distinguish himself from other performers in his ensemble 
such that his role can be considered leading or critical. 
The evidence further lacks proof that the organization for which the petitioner served had a 
"distinguished reputation." Aside from one website, which we were provided no information about 
(item I), all the evidence provided to demonstrate that the Peking Opera Theatre in Beijing was an 
exclusive organization came from the Peking Opera Theatre and was not independent evidence. 
Also, no specific evidence was included regarding the background of the petitioner's troupe or the 
troupe's standing in the community or world. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf are 
comparable evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability as a performer. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence'' only if the ten criteria 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory 
* Page 16 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. While reference letters can provide 
usehl information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such 
letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required 
by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed 
regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than 
the opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
In this case, the, petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Finally, the AAO notes that the petitioner is currently in the United States as a P-3 nonimmigrant, a 
visa classification that requires the alien to perform as a performer or entertainer at an internationally 
recognized level of performance, and that the alien seek to enter the United States "temporarily and 
solely for the purpose of performing as such a performer or entertainer." See section 214(c)(4)(B) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(4)(B). The current record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that the 
petitioner is performing as a performer or entertainer at an internationally recognized level or that he 
is in the United States "temporarily and solely" for the purpose of performing as such a performer or 
entertainer. 
While USCIS approved at least one P-3 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
petitioner's qualifications. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgome~, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthennore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonirnmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.