dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 9 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. *'+a. 
, ' ' Robert P. wicmin, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
\ 
EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. (j 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional materials. While we are persuaded that the petitioner has 
played a critical role for an entity with a distinguished reputation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we are not persuaded that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria as 
required. Thus, for the reasons discussed below, we will uphold the director's decision. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. Ij 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
Ij 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that she has sustained nationai or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a pianist. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien 
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has 
submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or irrternationaily recognizedprizes or awards for 
excellence in the jeld of endeavor. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's awards were received more than a decade prior to the date of filing 
and mostly student awards. On appeal, counsel asserts that there is no statutory provision that requires the 
awards to be "recent" or that precludes awards won by students. 
First, the statute requires evidence of "sustained acclaim." While we will consider older evidence, the record 
must demonstrate that any earlier acclaim is sustained as of the date of filing. Regarding student awards, 
counsel is correct that the petitioner's status as a student when she won the awards is not determinative. For 
example we would not discount a Nobel Prize because the recipient was a student at the time. The issue is 
whether competition for the award is limited to students. Where the most experienced and renowned members 
of the field do not aspire to win the award, we cannot conclude that the award is nationally or internationally 
recognized such that winning the award is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Most of the awards appear not only limited to students, but students at individual universities. For example, the 
an outstanding achievement award in collaborative piano from the 
The letter accompanying the award reveals that it is limited to students within the Collaborative 
at Boston University. Such recognition is not indicative of national or international acclaim. 
Similarly, the most experienced and renowned members of the field do not seek scholarships. As such, the 
petitioner's music scholarship cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
On September 19, 1993, the petitioner received a "Special Prize for Collaborative Pianist" at the Clarinet 
International Competition. The petitioner provides no evidence regarding how many "special prizes" were 
awarded, as compared with first, second and third prizes. Thus, the petitioner has not established the 
significance of this prize. 
The petitioner asserts that she received First Prize as the Best Romanian Accompanist in 1992. The only award 
issued in 1992 in the record, however, is the other 1992 award she lists, a generic "prize for collaborative piano" 
awarded by the Cluj Student House at the Music Academy "G.H. Dima" Cluj Napoca. The documented award 
appears limited to students at a particular academy. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mufter r$SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cruj of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Thus, we cannot consider the petitioner's claim to have won a national award in 1992. 
The petitioner's awards prior to 1992 appear limited to awards from music institutions limited to students at 
those institutions or young musicians. As stated above, these awards do not compare the petitioner with the 
most experienced and renowned musicians nationally or internationatly. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in ussociations in the $field ,fir which clas.sificution is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, us judged by recognized national or international 
experts in rheir di,scipline.v orjrlds. 
EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 
Page 4 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her "membership" in two music 
academies and the group Camerata Lysy. The director concluded that the record contained no evidence relating 
to this criterion. On appeal, counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Employment, even for a prestigious performance company or academy, is employment experience. It is not a 
"membership" in an association. Thus, employment cannot meet the plain language of the regulatory criterion. 
Rather, we must consider below whether the petitioner played a leading or critical role for an employer with a 
distinguished reputation nationally, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Published materiuls about the alien in professional or major trde publications or other major media, 
relaiing to the alien's work in the field for which clussijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, andany necessuty trattsIation. 
The director concluded that the evidence relating to this criterion was over a decade old and that the petitioner 
had not established the circulation or caliber of the publications. On appeal, counsel lists some of the 
publications. The petitioner does not submit circulation data for the publications. 
The etitioner submitted a review of her compact disc released in 2000 where she accompanied violinism 
d The review does not discuss the petitioner's performance beyond listing her as the pianist. Thus, the review is not primarily "about" the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit the circulation data for 
the publication. 
The remaining dated articles, mostly reviews of performances, were published in 1993 or earlier and all of the 
articles were published in newspapers of unknown circulation. Without evidence of the circulation of these 
publications, we cannot conclude that the reviews appeared in major media. It is inherent to the field of 
performing arts to be reviewed in publications local to the performance. Such reviews are not necessarily 
evidence indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
As the petitioner has not established that the published materials are either primarily "about" her or that they 
appear in major media, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original ~cienriJic, scholurly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
mqjor signiJicunce in the field. 
The petitioner relies on letters to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without 
weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Mutter of Chron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Cornm. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Id, The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter qf S'offici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Multer oJ'Treasure C'ruji ofUulfi)rnta, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 
Page 5 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and 
vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify contributions and 
provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition, letters from 
independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through her reputation and who have 
been influenced by her work are far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not 
previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's 
curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
The petitioner obtained her "Diploma of Degree" in music from the Ciprian Porumbescu Conservatory in 
Bucharest in 1988. The petitioner submitted a letter confirming her scholarship at the International Menuhin 
Music Academy (IMMA) in Switzerland and claims to have obtained a Master's degree in music from the 
academy in 1998. The Master's degree is not in the record. According to ~usical Director for 
founded IMMA in 1977 as a school for young, extremely gified string players. 
accompanied violin players durin their Master Classes with renowned professors. The petitioner 
also played piano and harpsichord durin ~concertsis an ensemble of I8 
virtuoso string players comprised of students and professors at IM t at tours ~nternationally, including 
performances before the Pope and the Queen of Spain. In 2000, the petitioner entered the Artist Diploma 
program in collaborative piano at Boston University. As of the date of filing, the petitioner was still a student at 
that university. 
a professor at IMMA, asserts that he met the petitioner at the Juilliard Music School and 
subsequently performed with her at IMMA. sserts that the petitioner has accompanied students 
and accomplished artists of international stature at IMMA as well as performing in numerous public concerts 
and professional quality recordings. characterizes the petitioner as accomplished and original and 
praises her skill. He asserts that when she accompanies other artists, "she is both creative and supportive of 
their musical contributions." 
Chairman of the Collaborative Piano Department at Boston University, praises the petitioner's 
abilities and notes the petitioner's international experience. asserts that the petitioner "brings a 
wealth of international performance and recording experience to her contacts with students and other young 
professionals" and that she is "in constant demand as a pianist.'' 
h 
singles out the petitioner's 
"knowledge of string repertoire." ~inall~asserts that the petitioner as 'Lringle-handedly raised the 
bar of pianistic prowess and ensemble expertise." 
a member of the collaborative and chamber music faculty at Harvard University and Boston 
Univers~ty, pralses the petitioner as "an accomplished and communicative performer with boundless potential -. 
for continued growth." He praises her ability to listen, teach, cooperate and criticize constructively. He 
concludes that she is "truly gified." 
a violin teacher at the Boston Conservatory of Music and Chairman of the Strong 
Department at the New England Conservatory Preparatory School, asserts that the petitioner accompanied violin 
students at the Boston Conservatory of Music, who "started to sound confident and inspired." 
EAC 02 25 1 5205 1 
Page 6 
an associate professor at Boston University, asserts that the petitioner's abilities exceed those of 
a student and some of the faculty. He notes the petitioner's international experience and unique interpretations 
of Mozart and Beethoven. He continues: 
Since her arrival in Boston, [the petitioner's] stature and reputation continues [sic] to grow. 
Her outstanding performances are much appreciated [by] many musicians in our community. 
My own sense is that [the petitioner] will soon be recognized as one of the outstanding 
collaborative pianists in this region. 
assessment of the petitioner as having only local notoriety is reinforced by the lack of letters 
from independent experts in the United States outside of the Boston area. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that she has participated in courses, performed and recorded a 
compact disc after the date of filing. These accomplishments cannot be considered as evidence of her eligibility 
as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $ 1 03.2(b)(12); Mutler of kirligbak, 1 4 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1 97 1 ). 
The petitioner also submits evidence regarding the acclaim en'oyed by violinists the petitioner has accompanied. 
The record reveals that the petitioner is valued by whose reputation we do not contest. Her recent 
performances, however, appear limited to accompanying - and his students at lMMA and students at 
Boston University, all while working towards a diploma at those institutions. The reference letters do not 
establish that the petitioner has garnered individual acclaim in her field such that she is sought to accompany 
renowned musicians beyond the institutions with which she is affiliated or the local Boston area where she 
works. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcuses. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion, initially submitting programs documenting her performances. The 
director concluded that the petitioner's performances over the last decade were not indicative of national or 
international acclaim. On appeal, counsel does not directly address this criterion. The petitioner submits 
evidence relating to the acclaim enjoyed by violinists the petitioner has accompanied. 
It is inherent to the field of performing arts that the artist performs. Not every performance is an artistic 
exhibition or showcase such that participating in the performance is indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
The petitioner's recent performances in the United States appear limited to schools in the Boston area, where the 
petitioner is a student, and mostly involve accompanying students. These performances are not indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. 
2001, less than a year prior to fling the petition, the petitioner performed with 
Islands. whilereceived top billing, the petitioner received equal 
The petitioner also performed as the sole accompanist fomin 
July 2001, with equal hilling. The petitioner also performed internationally in small ensembles or duets with 
d others in the mid-1990's through 2000. 
EAC 02 25 I 5205 1 
Page 7 
While the petitioner lists some of her performances under "festivals" on her resume, the record does not 
establish that these performances were exclusive showcases of orchestra music, rather than routine 
performances by Thus, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien hm performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or e~tabli~shmenrs that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The director. with little discussion. concluded that the ~etitioner had not submitted evidence relatine to this 
criterion. The petitioner claims to 'have played a leading or critical role ford IMMA. The 
petitioner's role wit does not appear more critical than the other musicians. The director's 
annual report fo lists the etitioner as an assistant, not as a member. The credit for the group's 
notoriety and success P appears to rest with 
That said, a brochure for IMMA provides: 
accompanist at the lMMA and she plays cembalo in the concerts with 
She is the veritable back bone at the IMMA. Day or night - she 
accompanies everybody who needs a piano. 
The petitioner has established the distinguished reputation of IMMA. Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofjce receipts or record, casselte, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion, despite its obvious relevance to her field. The petitioner 
submitted a review of a compact disc on which she performed. The petitioner, however, failed to submit 
evidence of the sates for the disc. As such. she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a pianist 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 indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a 
pianist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in 
her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.