dismissed EB-1A Case: Composer

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U S C~tlzensh~p and Imm~grat~on Services 
OfSIce of Admrn~stratrve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
,< 3L2;: &'.' p.::...lil p:""CY 
TiJ I t - U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 
PUBLIC 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: ?NN 2 6 2009 
LIN 07 127 51222 
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. 5 1 153(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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
b!n F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner 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: 
(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. 60897-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). Specific 
supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international acclaim" 
that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award)." Id. 
Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least three of ten 
other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts as a composer. 
With the original submission, the petitioner provided award certificates, letters of recommendation, and concert 
programs. In response to a Request for Evidence (RFE) dated April 9, 2007, the petitioner provided additional 
letters of recommendation, additional concert programs, and information about the organizations that bestowed 
awards upon her. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) not 
discussed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her receipt of the 2002 and 2004 American Society of Composers, Authors 
and Publishers (ASCAP) Foundation Morton Gould Young Composer award. The information submitted about 
the ASCAP awards indicate that only those persons under the age of 30 are allowed to enter and that the 
petitioner was one of 26 honored in 2002 and one of 25 honored in 2004. The competition was not open to 
professional composers of all ages, and the petitioner presented no evidence to show how a competition 
restricted to composers of a particular age would constitute an award for excellence in the field if it did not 
allow all of those working in the field to participate. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 
60899.' In addition, although the petitioner submitted press releases from the ASCAP Foundation and articles 
from New Music Box website and Playback magazine announcing the winners of the ASCAP awards, she 
presented no information about these publications to show that such articles are indicative of national or 
international recognition for this award. The petitioner also submitted two letters from professional musicians 
who commissioned the petitioner's work, 
 and 
 stating that this award is 
prestigious. 
 The petitioner presented no objective evidence supporting the assertion of the petitioner's 
colleagues. We note that counsel's description of the awards on appeal state that they are "impressive indicators 
of potential for success" and that many famous composers won the awards during their early years. This highly 
restrictive visa classification requires that the petitioner already have achieved great success so as to place them 
at the top of their field, not that they have a potential for success later. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter 
ofRacine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe 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. 5 204.5(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 and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS'S interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her receipt of the following prizes or awards: honorary mention in the 2006 
Tsang-Houei Hsu International Music Composition contest, winner of the 2006 Ensemble X competition, first 
place in the 2002 Music From China International Composition Competition, 1986 National Youth Keyboard 
Performance Competition Award, 1988 Spring Art Festival Award for Piano Performance, and the prix award in 
the 1989 Jiang Xi Youth Music Performance contest. We note that the awards photographed and identified as 
those from the Spring Art Festival and the Jiang Xi Youth Music Performance concert are not "accompanied by 
a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English" as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(3). The program from the Music From China competition indicates that it is 
open only to contestants under the age of 30. As stated above, a competition generally limited by age of 
competitor will not qualify an applicant under this criterion as a competition limited in such a way will exclude 
those potential competitors at the top of the profession. The petitioner submitted a program booklet for the 
Tsang-Houei Hsu contest and no additional information about any of the other contests. The petitioner 
submitted no information, such as news articles, about these contests to indicate that the prizes or awards given 
are recognized for excellence within the field. Although counsel asserts that these contests are nationally or 
internationally recognized, she submitted no evidence to support her claims. 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, 1 7 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that she was commissioned to compose a new piece in honor of George 
Crumb's 75th birthday, was invited to perform at a 2003 "New Voices from China: Contemporary Composers 
under 30" concert, was invited to attend a 2002 Pacific Music Festival Composition Course, was accepted into 
and given a fellowship to attend the Aspen Music Festival, and was invited to attend and given a fellowship to 
the 2002 Composers Conference at Wellesley College. The information submitted about the commissioned 
piece for 
 birthday indicates that tie commission was a part of the Oregon Bach Festival 
Composers Symposium. The petitioner presented and about the Oregon 
Symposium. No information about any contest with regard to submitted. The plain 
language of the criterion requires that any award or prize be nationally or internationally recognized within the 
field. The petitioner presented no evidence that the commission of this piece was recognized either through the 
media or by any other method. Similarly, the only information submitted about the "New Voices" concert is a 
letter from the managing director. The letter does not indicate that an invitation to participate is an award or 
prize or that any such award or prize is recognized for excellence within the field. The information about the 
Aspen Music Festival and the Pacific Music Festival does not state that being chosen to participate in either 
Festival amounts to an award or a prize nor did the petitioner submit evidence showing recognition for either of 
the festivals' attendees. The Wellesley College conference material states that ten composers are selected from 
around 100 applicants to attend the conference each summer. The letter from 
 states that the 
Wellesley College program is competitive and that "[mlany [of the participants] go on to successful composing 
and teaching careers." The petitioner submitted no evidence showing that bein selected to participate in the 
Wellesley College program, competitive as it may be as described by d, is recognized nationally or 
internationally as an award or prize within the field. 
The petitioner presented evidence of her receipt of certain educational assistance including a scholarship to 
attend the doctoral program at Cornell, an invitation to join Pi Kappa Lambda honors fraternity, the 2005 
Chinese Government Award for Outstanding Self-financed Students Abroad, and a scholarship to attend the 
Page 5 
Master's program at the Conservatory of Music at the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC). 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic 
scholarships cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, 
competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking 
scholarships. Similarly, experienced experts do not compete for fellowships, thus, neither scholarships nor 
fellowships establish that a petitioner is one of the very few at the top of her field. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner submitted evidence of her receipt of the 2007 sth edition of the Northridge 
Composition Prize, finalist in the percussion ensemble category of the 2007 Fourth International Jurgenson 
Competition of Young Composers, and the 2006-07 Robbins Family Prize in Composition. These prizes and 
awards were all bestowed upon the petitioner after the date that this petition was filed. 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. at 
49. As a result, we will not consider these additional awards in our decision. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrfication 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, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, proficiency certifications, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; 
the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted her membership card in the ASCAP. The information about ASCAP indicates that it 
has 285,000 members who are "composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers." The evidence about 
ASCAP also indicates that it boasts established musicians as well as "many thousands of writers in the earlier 
stages of their careers." We note that such a large number of members does not indicate the exclusive nature of 
an organization that requires outstanding achievement as a precondition for membership. The evidence 
submitted contains no information regarding the membership requirements of this organization and, in fact, the 
evidence presented indicates that membership is open to anyone working in the industry as opposed to limiting 
membership only to those who have made an outstanding achievement in the field. She also presented no 
evidence that membership applications for this organization are judged by nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the field. 
In response to the WE, counsel also claims that the petitioner is eligible under this criterion due to the 
invitations issued to her by the conferences and festivals discussed under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) above. The 
petitioner presented no evidence to show that an organization or association of artists invited to any of these 
conferences or festivals exists nor did she submit evidence to demonstrate the membership criteria for any 
association that does exist to show that membership criteria is based on extraordinary achievement as judged by 
recognized experts in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signijicance in thejeld. 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her fusion of classic Western music with 
Eastern flavor and her use of traditionally Eastern instruments. Counsel cites the performances of the 
petitioner's compositions as proof of her impact on the field. Although compositions by their very nature will 
be original, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that an alien's contributions 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. The petitioner presented no evidence that her fusion style is being adopted by her 
field in general or that it otherwise impacted her field. In addition, each criterion under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) is 
separate and distinct. The petitioner's argument that she made a significant contribution to the field by having 
her pieces performed would mean that the performances considered under criterion 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
would also qualify as major achievements within the field under this criterion. If evidence sufficient to meet 
one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least 
three criteria would be meaningless. 
The ~etitioner submitted letters of recommendation furthering her claim of eligibilitv under this criterion. These 
1ette;s from, executive director of Music ~rom China; 
Music at UMKC; Professor in Music Composition Professor of 
Composition at Cornell University; Associate 
Director of Wind Ensembles and Assistant Conductor at Cornell University; 
Music at Cornell University;; and 
 Professor of Music at Syracuse 
University; merely relate the petitioner's achievements and generally state that she is a successful composer. 
None of these letters assert that the petitioner's work has made a contribution of major significance to the field. 
While letters such as these provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they 
cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that 
the alien's work is of major significance in her field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom she 
has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. Although all of these 
letters, written by the petitioner's colleagues and friends, are complimentary about the petitioner's abilities as a 
musician, they do not establish that the petitioner has made a contribution of major significance in the field. In 
addition, many of these letters rely upon the petitioner's receipt of the awards discussed under the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i). Again, the criteria are separate and distinct. The petitioner presented no evidence to 
show that winning the awards described above amount to an original contribution of major significance to the 
field of musical composition. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien S work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion generally applies to the visual, not performing, arts. However, because the petitioner presented 
evidence of her performances with the festivals discussed above and with her schools, we have considered the 
relevant materials as comparable evidence of the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(4). Frequent performances are intrinsic to the musical profession just as display of art is inseparable 
from the profession of a visual artist. Given the statutory requirement for sustained national or international 
acclaim, the evidence under this criterion must reflect sustained national or international acclaim, not simply 
document an alien's continued employment in her field. The petitioner presented numerous playbills and 
programs evidencing the performance of the pieces she composed, however, the majority of those programs and 
playbills were for performances of the petitioner's pieces in the festivals discussed under 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) or by UMKC or Cornell University ensembles. The lack of the choice by independent 
ensembles or orchestras indicates that the performances were performed because of the petitioner's affiliation 
with the festival and educational establishments. In addition, none of the playbills or programs indicate that the 
petitioner's pieces were highlighted or were the main attraction at any of the performances. As this visa 
classification is highly restrictive, an alien must show that the display of her work demonstrates, reflects, or is 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Performances by fellow students in a learning environment such as with UMKC and Cornell University or in a 
festival such as those named above do not demonstrate national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she received a major, internationally recognized award, 
or that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). Review of the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim or 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 her eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and her petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.