dismissed EB-1A Case: Contemporary Classical Music Composition

'·dentir.~'''f data deleted to l ';y--e unwarranted prevent clearly . 
invasion of (lersonal priVacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
[)A TE: 
JUN \ '3 1.6n. 
orfice: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeab Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition I'1r Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U,S.c. § IIS3(h)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that ollice. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopen with 
the field officc or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-29Ul:!, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a mution can be found at tI C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) 
requires any motion to be filcd within 30 days of the decision that the motiun seeks to reconsider or reupen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chid, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petItIon. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on November 10, 2010. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the field of contemporary 
classical music composition, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. ~ 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that the petitioner has not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 
prcsent ··cxtensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and the following evidence: (1) an August 18,2010 United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) Policy Memorandum on evaluation of Form 1-140 
petitions, (2) an English translation of a Korean document about the Nanpa Festival, a Korean music 
fcstival, (3) a partial English translation of a Korean document on the Music Festival's past 
award winners, (4) December 8, 2010 online printouts about musicians 
•••••••••••••••• (5) December 8, 2010 online nnntn",t, 
Culture and Arts Promotion Fund, (6) English translations of Korean documents from the Korean 
National Archives of the Arts and the Korean Culture and Arts Foundation about the 31st Seoul 
Music Festival, and (7) December 8, 2010 online printouts about the Korea Creative Content Agency 
(KOCCA). In his brief filed in support of the instant appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets 
the nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(i), the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(v), the display at artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and the leading or critical role for organizations or establishments criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established his eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
suhmitted qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and he has 
not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the 
AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
Page J 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
1. Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. - An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(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. 
USClS 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 WIst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 
(Nov. 2Y, 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. 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 his 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 under the regulations at t\ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10), Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' 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 detennination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
heyol1li those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
The court stated that the AAO's 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 the AAO 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 the AAO concluded)" Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
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. In this case, the AAO, conducting 
appellate review on a de novo basis, finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and he has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at 
the very top of the field or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h) (2), (3); see also Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 201l!), alrd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); Soltane v. Dep 'f ojJustice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-
46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national Or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In 
this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
When counsel initially filed the petition on January 13,2010, he claimed that the petitioner meets the 
nationally Or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(i). In her September 7, 2010 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner's 
awards "arc sutTicicnt to meet this criterion," but the "awards fail to evidence sustained acclaim of 
the petitioner." Upon a review of the record, the AAO disagrees with the director. Instead, the AAO 
finds that the evidence does not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
! The rctitioncr docs not claim that the petitioner meets lhe regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Counsel has filed the following evidence in support of the assertion that the petitioner meets this 
criterion: 
I. An English translation of a Korean document entitled "Mothers [sic 1 Milk is the 
best'"'. indicating that the petitioner won third prize for his composition entitled 
2. document entitled "Music Award:' indicating that 
for his composition 
. at the "Citizen held by Ministry 
for Health. Welfare and Family Affairs and Planned Population Federation of Korea'"; 
3. November 17, 2009 online printouts about the Korean Ministry for Health, Welfare 
and Family Affairs, and the Planned Population Federation of Korea, a non­
governmental organization; 
4. An English translation of a Korean document entitled 
the was awarded the grand prize in composition 
5. An English of a Korean online printout entitled that 
discusses the 
6. An English translation 
petitioner received at the 
31st Seoul Music Festival; and 
7. A 30, 2009 letter 
listing the petitioner's 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion, 
because he has not shown that his four awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of contemporary classical music composition. First, none 
of the award certi fications have been properly translated under the regulation at 8 C.ER. 
* 103.2(b)(3), which states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete 
and accurate. and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English.'" Although the petitioner has provided a number of Aftidavits of 
Translation of Foreign Document, none of them indicate that the translation is a full English 
translation. Indeed. each Atlidavit states that the "translation or abstract translation ... is a true and 
correct translation" (Emphasis added.) 
Second, the petitioner's awards are not accompanied by information about the competItIve 
categories in which he competed, including how his competitions were nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of contemporary classical music composition. The petitioner has not 
submitted evidence (such as official results) showing the number of participants in the competitive 
categories in which he received awards, the standing or recognition of the other participants in his 
categories, the awards' nomination or selection process, or any other indication that the awards are 
Page h 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of contemporary classical 
music composition, including but not limited to media coverage of the events. 
Specifically, the AAO notes that the petitioner has provided no information on the nomination or 
selection process of the 1999 Citizen Promotion Project, in which the petitioner's composition "Love 
Meeting. Mother"s Milk" won the third place. Given that the Citizen Promotion Project was 
associated with a public awareness campaign, not a musical competition, the AAO finds no 
evidentiary support to conclude that the judges judged the composition based on its musical quality, 
rather than other considerations, such as, the relevance of the song to the campaign. As such, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner's third place finish at the Citizen Promotion Project 
constitutes evidence of his receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Similarly, according to an English translation of a Korean online printout entitled "Nanpa Festival," 
thc competition was divided into categories for children and adults, and for primary, secondary and 
college students. It is unclear from the award certificate in which category the petitioner 
participated. The lack of information on the specific competitive category, in which the petitioner 
claimed to have received a grand prize, and information on fellow participants in the competitive 
category does not support a finding that the petitioner'S placement in the competition constitutes 
evidence of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. In counsel's response to 
the director's Request for Evidence, counsel asserted that this competition "is open to professional 
musicians 20 years of age or younger." The AAO notes that at the time of the 20(H competition, the 
petitioner, who was born in November 1974, was twenty-six years old. It therefore appears that the 
petitioner was not eligible to compete in the competition. The petitioner has provided inconsistent 
documents and "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts [or evidence], absent 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice." Matter of 
Ho, 191&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BlA 1988). The petitioner has provided no such evidence to explain 
or reconcile the inconsistent evidence. 
the evidence in the record does not establish that a grand prize 
••••• is a national or international recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
contemporary classical music composition. In the director's for Evidence, 
counsel provided a three-page Korean document on the with a half-page 
English translation. Clearly, the English translation is not a full translation as required under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, according to the partial English translation, the only 
qualification for the competition is Korean citizenship. In addition, the evidence shows that the 
petitioner was one of fourteen award winners in the chamber music category, a competitive category 
that has an unspecified number of In short, none of the evidence supports a finding that 
the petitioner's award constitutes receiving a lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence the field of endeavor. 
Page 7 
Accordingly, based on the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that he has not presented 
documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of'the alien's membership in associations in the field/br which classification is 
sought. which require olltstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii). 
When counsel initially filed the petition, he claimed that the petitioner meets the membership in 
associations that require outstanding achievements criterion under the regulation at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Counsel continued to assert that the petitioner meets this criterion in his response 
to the director's Request for Evidence. As supporting evidence, counsel provided: (1) a photocopy 
of the petitioner's membership card for the Music Association of Korea, Korean National Committee 
of International Music Council, (2) a photocopy of a September 4, 2009 certificate of holding office, 
certifying that the petitioner is a member" of the . and (3) a 
September I. 2009 letter from verifying the 
pctitioncr's membership. In her September 7, 2010 decision, the the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion, because the evidence does not show that the Music Association of 
Korea requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
On appeal, counsel has not asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. Accordingly, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda \'. United Siaies All y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2(05); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1,9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States 
District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). 
Evidence of' the alien's original scientific, scholarly, arllsllc, athletic, or husiness-related 
contrihutiolls Of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
When counsel initially filed the petition, he claimed that the petitioner meets the 
contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 CF.R. § ~V-T'~""I\~ 
response to the director's for Evidence, stated that the np,iti"n.>r'< 
and 
significance in the contemporary ua,,,.La. 
music composItIOn. In her September 7,2010 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has 
not met this criterion. The AAO concurs. 
Page K 
As supporting evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion, counsel has provided: 
1. An English translation of a Korean document entitled 
that the petitioner composed a 
2. An English translation of the Korean program of 
indicating that the petitioner composed a piece called 
3. An English translation of the Korean program of 
indicating that the petitioner composed a piece 
4. The petitioner's portfolio, which includes the sheet music of pie1ces, dated from 
1998 to 2007; 
5~ember 29, 2009 letter 
_ concluding that, based on a review of the petitioner's "background, history, 
resume and compositions," the petitioner's compositions "are performed annually to 
commemorate the Seoul Music Festival" and the petitioner was gIven a 
"$200,000.000 [grant] to . 
n. An October 'I, 2009 letter 
stating that, upon s resume and portfolio. 
concludes that the petitioner "has won numerous awards in the field of Contemporary 
Classical Music composition that are acclaimed and much sought after"; 
7. An October 14, 2009 letter from 
_ and..-, confirming that he has had "the pleasure of reviewing 
petitioner's work as a composer" and stating that the petitioner's compositions "are 
inspiring nationally and internationally"; 
8. An October 16, 2009 letter from a musician, confirming that he has had 
··the opportunity to review [the petitioner's] background, resume and qualifications" 
and stating that the petitioner received "grants in excess of $200,000.00 for musical 
production"; and 
9. A March 2, 2010 letter from 
that she will perform the s piece 
_ in her upcoming chamber music works. 
With the exception of the letter the petitioner's references do not suggest that 
they were previously aware of the his reputation prior to being contacted for a 
reference letter. While they all assert that the petitioner meets a sufficient number of the criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 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). ajf"d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 
10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
13ased on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that although the petitioner has shown evidence 
of original compositions, he has not shown that his compositions constitute contributions of 
l\.-ctl.ILL in the field of contemporary classical music composition. First, the composition 
was composed and used for the Korean government's public awareness 
campaign to The composition might be considered an important element in 
the government' s public awareness campaign, but it cannot be said to have major significance in the 
field of contemporary classical music composition. Indeed, as noted, the evidence does not even 
establish that the judges who awarded the petitioner's composition the third place finish at the 
Citizen Promotion were musicians. Second, although counsel asserted in his response to the 
director's Request "has been performed by professional 
flutists across South Korea for over 10 years" and recently performed by the famed Korean 
flute soloist_ on July 30, 2009," the evidence does not these assertions. The evidence 
shows that was performed in the The 
evidence does not piece was performed at any other time. In his response to the 
director's Request for Evidence, counsel pointed to documents under Exhibits E and G to support his 
assertions. The documents under Exhibits E and G, however, do not include evidence that the piece 
was performed after 1999. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the petitioner had presented evidence 
that his composition was performed twice, once in 1999 and once in 2009, the AAO would conclude 
that this evidence does not support a finding that the piece constitutes a contribution of major 
significance in the field of contemporary classical music composition. Producing music for 
musicians to perform is inherent to making a living as a composer. Not every composition 
performed is a contribution of major significance to the field of composition. Moreover, neither the 
other compositions nor his reference letters establish that any of the petitioner's compositions 
constitute a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of 
qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. As such, even if the AAO were to find that 
the petitioner's 1998 composition "Goot (The Second)" constitutes his original contribution of major 
signi ficance in the field of contemporary classical music composition, this single example of a 
contribution is insufficient evidence of contributions of major significance in the plural. 
Accordingly, based on the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that he has not presented evidence 
of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field of stage management and creation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 
See il C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
El'idellce o( the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade [lllhlicatio/lS or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
When counsel initially filed the petition, he claimed that the petitioner meets the authorship of 
scholarly articles criterion under the regulation at il C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Counsel continued to 
assert that the petitioner meets this criterion in his response to the director's Request for Evidence. 
Page 10 
As supporting evidence, counsel provided a number of documents, including (1) an English 
translation of a Korean document, entitled and (2) online printouts on a 
number of internet websites that counsel stated had reprinted the petitioner's article. In her 
September 7, 20 I 0 decision, the director found that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because 
the "record lacks evidence to establish if this article is published in a major music oriented media. " 
On appeal, counsel has not asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. Accordingly, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appea\. 
Seplllvnlu, 401 F.3d at 1228; Hristov, 2011 WL4711885 at *9. 
/:'\,iJence of Ihe Ji!>play of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
When counsel initially filed the petition, he claimed that the petitioner meets the display at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases criterion under the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Counsel 
continued to assert that the petitioner meets this criterion in his response to the director's Request for 
Evidence. In her September 7, 2010 decision, the director found that the petitioner has not met this 
criterion. Upon a review of the record, the AAO disagrees with the director. In short, based on the 
evidence in the record, including documents that the were 
AAO 
finds that the petitioner has presented evidence of the displalY 
exhibitions or showcases. The petitioner has met this criterion. 
El'iJenCl' thaI the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
When counsel initially filed the petition, he asserted that the petitioner meets the leading or critical 
role criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Counsel continued to assert that 
the petitioner meets this criterion in his response to the director's Request for 
·Iicall},. counsel asserted that the petitioner "was the founder and deputy director" 
"a leader in high quality production of established and emerging 
artists alike." In her 7, 2010 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has not 
met this criterion, because the evidence does not show that _ has a distinguished reputation. The 
AAO agrees. 
As supporting evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion, counsel has provided a number of 
documents, including: (1) a certification of business register, the 
itioner as the representative, (2) an undated document, entitled 
!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~11111~" ••••••••• Letter" that the •••••••• 
a June 11, 2002 <locum 
the producer of 
with a support Won from the Korea Creative Contents 
Agency, (4) a May 17, 2002 Joint Copyright Agreement between ••••••••••• 
........... (5) two Letters of Credit Guarantee, both dated February 28, 2002, (6) a 
Page II 
December If>, 2002 Letter of M.O.U. Agreement between 
_ and (7)_ promotional material. None of the documents, however, shows that is an 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Counsel asserts in his brief filed in 
support of the appeal that the fund discussed in the Korean government's loan documents "was not 
loaned, but awarded to [the p]etitioner from the Korean Creative Content Agency based upon [the 
p]etitioner's distinguished reputation as a composer." Notwithstanding these documents. counsel 
has not pointed to any evidence in the record to support his assertion that an artistic foundation's 
ability to secure government grants is evidence of the foundation's reputation. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of TreaslIre Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972». In short, the AAO 
concurs with the director that the petitioner has not shown that GSM has a distinguished reputation. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence 
showing that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments, in the plural, that have a distinguished reputation. This requirement is consistent 
with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. 
As such, even if the AAO were to conclude that GSM has a distinguished reputation, the record 
lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for a second 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented 
evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The petitioner has not met this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conel usion 
III a final merits determination.] Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
The AAO mainlains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Or. 
20(4). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the offke 
lhalmade lhe lasl decision in this malter. 8 C.F.R. § !03.5(a)(I)(ii); see also INA §§ 100(a)(I). 204(b); DHS Delegation 
Numher (l150.1 (dfcclive March 1,2(03); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § !03.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 
I Y I&N Dec. 45X, 460 (HIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sale authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions).