dismissed EB-1A Case: Folk Singer

(b)(6)
DATE : JUL 1 7 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case . 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO . 
Thank you~ 
If!/~ 
Ron Ro;enberg "-
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/20 15 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AA0). 1 The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a folk singer, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
which makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their 
field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act limits this classification 
to petitioners with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (ix) and (x). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the 
director that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies 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 petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) , (3). 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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 , 
1 In her initial filin g a nd response to the director ' s request for evid ence (RFE), the petitioner states that in addition to her 
legal name , she is also known as 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate her sustained acclaim and the recognition of her achievements in the field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then she must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS ' proper application of 
Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter o[Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.P.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 thefield of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion. Specifically, the petitioner states her 
awards that the of Nepal and the 
ofNepal issued, and her nominations for the demonstrate that 
she meets this criterion. The evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that her 
Duet Category from the 
Award for Best Female Singer under the Folk 
, also known as the 
is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. The petitioner has submitted a foreign language award certificate, which 
according to the accompanying English translation, states that the petitioner received the "best 
female singer award in folk duet category in the organized by [the] 
_ The petitioner has not submitted a certified English translation 
that meets the regulatory requirements under the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 103 .2(b )(3 ). The regulation 
provides: "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." Instead, the translation bears a stamp that states: "English/Nepali Translation." The 
record lacks a certification stating that the English translation is "full," "complete and accurate," or 
that the translator is competent to translate. As such, the English translation of the award certificate 
has limited evidentiary value. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that the award is 
either nationally or internationally recognized. In response to the director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the petitioner submitted a June 19, 2014 letter from the General Secretary of 
the The letter states that the petitioner's award was presented during · 
. .. a national level program held with [the] objective of recognizing different artists and 
talents of the television world in Nepal." The letter further indicates that the petitioner received the 
award "on the basis of an independent assessment of the panel of jury as chaired by 
assessing the nominees on the basis of continuous excellent contribution for protection 
and promotion of music in Nepal." The letter provides information on the organizer, purpose, 
selection process and recipients of the award. The letter, however, does not provide information on 
the recognition of the award nationally or internationally. At issue is how others in the field and/or 
3 The letter lists the author's title as "General secretly." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
the public perceive the award and if they recognize the award on a national or international level. A 
letter from the award organizer is insufficient to show that others outside the organizing entity 
recognize the award. 
The record also includes an English translation of a article entitled 
and an article about the awards posted on The 
articles, which lack information on the author of the articles, do not establish that the petitioner's 
award at this event is nationally or internationally recognized. The evidence shows that 
offered the awards, and the petitioner has not established that the media 
coverage demonstrates recognition as opposed to novelty. Regardless, the article posted at 
focuses on awards related to television and does not mention any awards for music. 
The article in begins by reporting the television awards and states that the "program 
was held in the presence of the most popular artists and 
where the title of Most Popular was 
awarded to and [the petitioner)." This sentence does not establish that the petitioner 
received a music award at an event that issues nationally recognized music awards. In short, the 
petitioner has not shown that her Award that the issued meets this criterion. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that her Award in the Folk Duet 
Female Singer Category from the is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. The petitioner has submitted a 
foreign language award certificate, which according to the accompanying uncertified English 
translation , states that the petitioner received an award "in the category of 'Folk Duet Female Singer 
in the The petitioner has not 
submitted a translation certificate that meets the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F .R. 103 .2(b )(3 ). 
The record lacks a certification stating that the submitted English translation is full, complete and 
accurate or that the translator is competent to translate. In addition, the submitted English translation 
appears to contain inconsistent information. Specifically, the award category is "Folk Duet Female 
Singer- while the name of the award is ' Moreover, 
the year appears in the heading of the certificate. The petitioner has not provided an 
explanation on why the heading, the award category and the award title have three different years. 
As such, the English translation for this award certificate has limited evidentiary weight. 
Moreover, evidence in the record, including the June 19, 2014 letter from President of 
recognized, as the petitioner asserts on appeal. 
Duet Female Vocalist- the 
does not establish that the award is nationally 
states that the petitioner won the '"Best 
organized as the 
states that the competition "is a 
national level competition where there was enthusiastic participation of a large number of folk and 
duet female singers from all over Nepal." conclusory statements that the competition is 
"a national level competition " that had "a large number" of participants are insufficient to 
demonstrate that an award from the competition is nationally or internationally recognized . Neither 
letter nor any other evidence in the record provides information on how many female 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
singers competed for the award, or if the competitiOn was open to all smgers, including 
accomplished, well-established and professional singers. 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 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). A letter from does 
not demonstrate any recognition beyond this entity. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence about the the organizer of the competition. According 
to was "registered in District Administration Office, 
According to a May 15, 2014 letter from who also identifies himself as the 
President of , the was registered at the District Administration Office in 
, not The petitioner has not explained this inconsistency. Letters from and 
and online printouts from indicate that the is "a national 
level organization," and its missions are ' 
' The petitioner has also submitted a photograph with the caption: 
' posted on The submitted documents 
provide information relating to the such as its missions, organizational structure, former 
presidents and its events; such information, however, does not establish that the petitioner's 
award is nationally or internationally recognized. At issue is not the reputation of , at issue is 
the recognition and prestige of the award that petitioner received. 
Although the petitioner has submitted some evidence that the competition received media 
coverage, this single article does not establish that her award from the competition is nationally or 
internationally recognized . The record includes a article entitled ' 
Although the article states that "[ e ]very year[,] 
organizes this A wards program" and provides information on the award 
winners. The petitioner has not shown with this single article that her award garners media 
attention consistent with a nationally recognized award such that it meets this criterion. 
Third, the petitioner 's nominations to the do not meet the plain 
language of the criterion. The record includes a article entitled 
that discusses a rock band receiving awards at the 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a article stating that the 
is "Nepal 's The criterion, however, 
requires the petitioner to show her actual receipt of prizes or awards. The petitioner has not shown 
or provided any legal authority to support her assertion that nominations, without evidence of actual 
receipt of prizes or awards, meet the plain language of the criterion. 
Finally, the record includes evidence of the petitioner 's other accolades, including the petitioner's 
A wards, A ward -
Award, and On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically asserted that 
these accolades meet the criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att 'y Gen., 401 P .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); 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 plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal). Moreover, the petitioner has not pointed to any evidence in the record 
showing, and the evidence in the record does not show, that her other accolades meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of her 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 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she is a member of the 
of Nepal. The petitioner asserts that a 1 une 19, 20 14 letter from Secretary of 
the of Nepal, establishes that the association requires outstanding achievements 
of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The evidence in the 
record does not support the petitioner's assertion. 
The petitioner has submitted two letters from the of Nepal. The first letter is an 
April 5, 2009 letter from . Secretary of the of Nepal, stating that 
the petitioner has been a member of the association since letter does not 
provide information on membership requirements . The second letter is a June 19, 2014 letter from 
. which the petitioner submitted in response to the director 's RFE. letter states 
that the membership requirements for the association include "exceptional and extraordinary talent 
in [the] musical field" and "valuable contribution to the music industry through [the applicant 's] 
talent in the musical field." letter does not indicate the source of the membership 
requirements, i.e., if the requirements came from the association's bylaws or official membership 
policy that existed at the time the petitioner became a member. general conclusory 
statements, without support from the association 's bylaws, constitution or other official material 
providing the specific membership requirements , are insufficient. USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
In addition, neither nor any other evidence in the record provides definitions for or details 
on what constitute "exceptional and extraordinary talent" or "valuable contribution." Without such 
information, the petitioner has not shown that the association requires "outstanding achievements" of 
its members, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Moreover, the plain language of 
the criterion states that the petitioner must show that the "recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines or fields" judged the prospective members. Neither letter nor any 
other evidence in the record demonstrates that national or international experts were involved in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
membership selection process at the time the petitioner became a member. In short, the petitioner 
has not shown that her membership in the ofNepal meets this criterion. 
Finally, the record includes evidence showing that the petitioner is a member of other associations , 
including the and the of Nepal. On 
appeal, the petitioner has not specifically asserted that her membership in these associations meet 
this criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on 
appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Moreover, the evidence 
in the record, which includes reference letters and materials from the associations, does not show the 
petitioner's membership in the associations meets the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of her membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofth e material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. For example, the record includes an October 20, 2013 article that 
discusses the petitioner 's work as a folk singer and her taxes. The record also includes evidence, 
such as the U.S. State Department report on Nepal, indicating that the IS maJor 
media in Nepal. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which class(fication is sought. 8 C.P.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. Specifically , according to a July 31 , 2013 letter from Director of 
in the petitioner served as a guest judge on the television 
program' ' a reality show about dancing talents. The petitioner has submitted a 
July 7, 2014 letter from Administration Chief, stating 
that the petitioner served as a judge 
for '' 
' The record includes a June 27, 2014 letter from _ , President 
of stating that in the petitioner served as a jury member for 
the award. Accordingly , the petitioner has submitted evidence of 
her participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, relying on reference letters from Senior Music Director, Chief-
Music Department, of the and of the 
of Nepal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion. To meet this criterion, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that her contributions are both original and of major significance in the 
field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not 
superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28,31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted inAPWUv . Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2d Cir. 2003)). The 
petitioner must show that her contributions are original, such that she is the first person or one of the 
first people to have done certain performances in the field; and that her contributions are of major 
significance in the field, such that her performances fundamentally changed or significantly advance 
the field as a whole. In addition, contributions of major significance connotes that her performance 
has already significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-36. The evidence 
in the record does not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not specify what she has done as a folk singer that is either original or 
explain how she has had an impact in the field consistent with a finding of "major significance." 
The October 7, 2013 letter from provides that the petitioner "is a versatile young artist 
(singer) ofNepal ," "has high professionalism and dynamic quality," and that she has been involved 
in the "revitaliz[ation of] folk song in Nepalese music industry." states that the petitioner 
"has offered unique contributions to the Nepalese folk and duet songs. [The petitioner ,] a legend in 
duet and folk song[,] played an important role for creating history in Nepalese duet and folk songs 
and dance as well .... Her creativity and hard work helped in many ways to introduce Nepal and 
Nepalese Culture in global arena through different ways which is always significant." Both letters 
provide general statements about the petitioner 's talents and the importance of her work, but neither 
specifies what the petitioner has done that is original, such that she is the first person or one of the 
first people to have done the work, or establishes that the petitioner's work has had an impact in the 
field consistent with a finding of "major significance." 
In addition, the petitioner has submitted a number of reference letters that contain vi1tually identical 
language. A June 26, 2014 letter from Acting Director of 
contains virtually identical language as a June 19, 2014 letter from states in 
his letter: 
[The petitioner] exemplifies the quality of an outstanding, dedicated singer who 
possesses a melodious voice. We along with large audience of Nepal are ardent 
admirer of her spirit, creative talents and outstanding talent of singing the 
contemporary and contextual songs which directly touches and attracts the majority 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
of people. She is one of the high demanding singers for international performance 
who have performed in many Countries. 
states in his letter: 
[The petitioner] exemplifies the quality of an outstanding, dedicated singer who 
possesses a melodious voice and thoughtful, meaningful and sentimental lyrics as 
well. We along with large audience of Nepal are ardent admirers · of her spirit, 
creative talents and outstanding talent of singing the contemporary and contextual 
songs which directly touches and attracts the majority of people. She is one of the 
high demanding singers for international performance who have performed in many 
Countries. 
Similarly, a June 27, 2014 letter from . General Secretary of 
contains virtually identical language as a June 27, 2014 letter from 
President of states in his letter (grammar as it appears in 
original): 
[The petitioner] is known in the folk and duet music industry as the best singer 
awarded with many outstanding title of Best Vocalist, Best Folk and Duet Singer. 
She is praised for her judging ability, awarded with prizes and titles 
in competition , 
and honored with title owner of different musical prestigious award ceremony. Her 
solo albums on folk and duet song were rated as A+ in the music market. 
letter, which includes the same grammar that appears in letter, states: 
[The petitioner] is known in the folk and duet music industry as the best singer 
awarded with many outstanding title of Best Vocalist, Best Folk and Duet Singer. 
She is praised for her judging ability, awarded with prizes and titles in competition, 
and honored with title owner of different musical prestigious award ceremony. Her 
solo albums on folk and duet song were rated as A+ in the music market. 
Moreover, General Secretary of the of Nepal states 
that the petitioner is "beautifully organized, attractive, efficient and extraordinary talented person." 
President of states that the petitioner is "organized , efficient, extremely 
competent and extra ordinary talented person with active participant in many community 
endeavors." a folk song performer states that the petitioner 
"is beautifully organized, 
attractive, efficient, extremely competent and extra ordinary talented person with · active participant 
in many community events." Managing Director, states 
that the petitioner "is beautifully organized, attractive, efficient, extremely competent and extra 
ordinary talented person." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 11 
The record includes a number of reference letters that contain virtually the same language when 
describing the petitioner's achievements and talents, suggesting the language in the letters is not the 
authors' own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d eir. 
2006) (upholding an immigration judge 's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings 
based in part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. United States Dep 't of 
Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d eir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably 
infer that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits , the applicant is the 
common source). 
Finally, vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions 
or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.4 
Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th eir. 2009), aff'd in part , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th eir. 
201 0). The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter ofCaron Int'l, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, USers is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 
24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated , in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter of So.ffzci, 
22 I&N at 165; Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight 
to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 e .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The director found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not 
challenged the director 's finding as relating to this criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *9. In addition, the plain language of the criterion suggests that it is limited to 
evidence relating to the visual arts. This interpretation is longstanding and has been upheld by a 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory langua ge." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
federal district court. See Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ, 2008 WL 10697512, at 
* 1, 4 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist 
do not fall under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). In this case, the petitioner is not a 
visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. Accordingly , the petitioner has not presented evidence of the display of her work in the 
field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not 
challenged the director's finding as relating to this criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *9. In addition, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner's 
involvement with any organizations or establishments constitutes either a leading or critical role for 
the organizations or establishments. Moreover, the evidence in the record does not establish that 
these organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation, as required by the plain 
language of the criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has 
performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the fi eld. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that articles from the and show 
that she meets this criterion. The petitioner's assertion is not supported by the evidence in the 
record. 
First, the article · is insufficient to 
show that the petitioner meets this criterion . According to the article, the petitioner "has become a 
_ _ _ is "the most demanded and expensive singer 
[and] has performed several stage shows in foreign countries too." The article lacks information on 
its author. The article also does not specifically state the amount of petitioner's earnings, or the 
amount of earnings of others in the field, to which we could compare the petitioner's earnings. The 
article does not explain what it means to be ' 
Moreover, the article does not indicate the geographic area, i.e. a town, a city or the entire country, 
in which the petitioner is "the most demanded and expensive singer." The article also does not 
specify evidence in support of its general and conclusory statement that the petitioner is "the most 
demanded and 
expensive singer." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 13 
Second, the article · ' that includes the handwritten notation: _ _ Article" 
is insufficient to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. The handwritten notation is 
insufficient to establish that . published the article. In addition, although one copy of 
the article follows _ _ _ cover, the page where the article appears does not 
include any printed marking establishing that published the article. Moreover, the 
upper right hand comer of one copy ofthe article, submitted in response to the director's RFE, has a 
printed "Promotion" notation, which is consistent with promotional material, rather than a 
newspaper article. Similar to the article, this article does not indicate the 
geographic area in which the petitioner is "the heighest [sic] paid singer." The article also does not 
provide specific evidence in support of its conclusory statement. 
Third, other evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The 
petitioner has submitted a letter from from 
Accountants, stating that her income for an unspecified period was $82,313.35. The letter states that 
the petitioner's income information "has been provided on the basis of supporting documents and the 
explanations provided . .. by (Brother of [the Petitioner])." The letter 
further states that "the figures and facts stated in this certificate are true and fair to the extent of 
information provided to us." The record lacks evidence showing the petitioner's actual receipt of 
any salary or remuneration for her work as a folk singer, or her actual payment of income taxes. As 
such, the figures provided in letter constitute unsubstantiated facts and do not establish 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. Matter o.fSofjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner has submitted some evidence of the compensations she received as a folk singer. The 
record contains : (1) a December 10, 2013 letter from Proprietor of 
stating that the petitioner received a royalty of Rs. 1207,580, or 
approximately $12,221.50, for her music album ' (2) a December 25, 
2013 letter from , Managing Director, , stating that 
the petitioner has received a royalty of Rs. 13,38,327, or approximately $13,355.40, for her music 
albums ' and' - (3) a November 19, 2013 letter from 
Managing Director, , stating that the petitioner has received 
Rs. 25,93,823, or approximately $25,738.50, for her album - and (4) a December 19, 2013 
letter from Managing Director, stating that the petitioner has 
received Rs. 29,89,536, or approximately $29,665.20, for her album 8 In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a number of Contract Agreements. 
5 
According to www.oanda.com /currencv/converter/, on December 10, 2013, Nepali Rupees (Rs.) 12,07,580 was 
approximately $12,221.50. 
6 According to www.oanda.com /currencv/conveJter /, on December 25, 2013, Rs. 13,38,327 was approximately 
$13,355.40. 
7 According to www.oanda.com /currencv/converter /, on December 19, 2013, Rs. 25,93,823 was approximately 
$25,738.50. 
8 
According to www.oanda.com/currencv/conve!ter/, on December 19, 2013, Rs. 29,89 ,536 was appro ximately 
$29,665.20. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 14 
Although the Contract Agreements provide monetary figures for petitioner's compensation, the 
Contract Agreements do not specify the currency in which the petitioners would be paid. For 
example, according to an April 21, 2006 contract, the _ _ 
"has to pay, [the petitioner], folk singer a total of six hundred thousand. This will be paid 
in two equal payments of three hundred thousand on advance before the program. Payment of the 
final three hundred thousand will be made after completion of programs ." 
Notwithstanding evidence relating to the petitioner's compensation, the petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence relating to the salary or remuneration information of others in her field. Without 
such information, even if the petitioner has presented evidence relating to her own salary or 
remuneration, the petitioner has not shown that in relation to others in her field, her salary is high or 
that her remuneration is significantly high. 
Accordingly , the petitioner has not submitted evidence that he has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she "is hailed as 
with chart topping hit songs," "has performed in various parts of the globe," and "is 
one of the most bankable folk singers in Nepal." The evidence in the record does not support this 
assertion . 
At issue is whether the petitioner's work has enjoyed commercial successes. The record includes a 
November 23, 2013 document from . Nepal, stating that the petitioner 's 
albums have sold between 54,285 to 139,446 copies and the petitioner has received an "A+" grade in 
"Box Office Sales Report" and an "A++" grade in "Stage Performance Level." The document states 
that the "rankings are purely best [sic] on the research number pertaining to the collection analysis 
interpretation or explanation and presentation of statistical data." The document does not provide 
any specific information on the source of the album sale data. Neither the letter nor other evidence 
in the record indicates that information provided by Nepal, is accurate or 
reliable, or if its opinion or analysis is accepted and trusted in the music industry. The document 
acknowledges that "box office in Nepal . .. is not an open book as in the west." Furthermore, the 
record does not contain other evidence that corroborates the information provided in the document. 
Because the petitioner has not established the document's accuracy or reliability, the evidentiary 
value of this document i s limited. 
Although the record includes some newspaper articles and the accountant 's letter relating to the 
petitioner 's earnings , the petitioner has not shown what portion of her earnings derives from her 
album sales or ticket sales. In addition, although the petitioner has submitted letters indicating that 
she has received royalties for her albums, the petitioner has not shown that her level of royalties is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
indicative of the albums' commercial success. The record lacks evidence from a reliable source 
showing the sales numbers that contributed to those royalties and comparable album sale numbers 
for other artists. As such, evidence relating to her income is not sufficient to show the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence showing that she has performed in domestic and international 
venues, but has not submitted evidence relating to "box office receipts" or ticket sales for her 
performances. The petitioner has also submitted evidence that a radio 
station in Nepal, has played her music on air. This type of evidence, however, is not evidence of 
"box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales." 
Accordingly , the petitioner has not submitted evidence of commercial successes in the performing 
arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
B. Summary 
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the petitioner has been working as a folk singer for a 
number of years. Notwithstanding evidence showing that the petitioner has received some 
recognition and media attention for her work, for the reasons discussed above, we agree with the 
director that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that 
satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his or her 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: (1) 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 her 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. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless , although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies, 
including the evidence he references on appeal in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
has not demonstrated, throu§h the submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required 
for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding , we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(J)(ii) ; see also INA §§ 103(a)(J), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150 .1 (effective March I, 2003) ; 8 
C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F .R. § I 03.1 (f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458 , 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions) .