dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-M-R-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 9, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a violist and mandolinist, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in 
the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
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 submits a brief and additional evidence. The Petitioner asserts that he meets 
the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii). In 
addition, the Petitioner states that the Director incorrectly held the petitioner to a higher standard of 
proof. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the standard of proof in this matter is "preponderance of the 
evidence." The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the Petitioner 
from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements of the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the 
statute and regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit that evidence. 
In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter o[Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 
2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. at 
376. In the present matter, the documentation submitted does not demonstrate by a preponderance of 
the evidence that the Petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
and, therefore, that he satisfies the regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
The Petitioner alleges that he "is being treated in a prejudicial fashion by the Service" in violation of 
his due process rights. The Petitioner states: "The RFE [request for evidence] which was issued in 
this case is dated 18 July 2014 yet, the very envelope in which these very important documents were 
mailed to the undersigned has a postmark of 21 July 2014." The record reflects that the Director 
dated-stamped the RFE on Friday, July 18, 2014, but it was not postmarked until Monday, July 21, 
2014. As the RFE was mailed rather than personally served, the Director afforded the Petitioner an 
additional three days in which to submit his response in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
Matter of R-M-R-
§ 103.8(b). Page 10 of the RFE stated: "You must submit the requested information within eighty­
four (84) days from the date of this letter (87 days if this notice was received by mail)." As the 
Petitioner was afforded an additional three days and his RFE response was timely received by the 
Director on October 10, 2014, the Petitioner has not shown that his ability to file a timely and 
meaningful response was affected by the mailing delay of one business day or how the delay 
demonstrates that he was treated in a prejudicial fashion by USCIS in violation of his due process 
rights. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established his 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 he is one of the small percentage who is at the 
very top in the field of endeavor, and that he 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, 
(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. 723 101 st 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. I d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
2 
Matter of R-M-R-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of his 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 he 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9111 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), 
ajf'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9!h 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376 (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"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "USCIS has incorrectly interpreted Kazarian as establishing a 
'two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final 
merits determination.'" In Kazarian, although the court upheld our decision to deny the petition, the 
court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 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 determination." 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "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)(3). Only 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are 
eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. Thus, it is clear that the Kazarian court set forth a two-part approach where we first 
count evidence and then consider it in the context of a final merits determination. 
The petitioner challenges our interpretation and cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1234 (E.D. 
Mich. 1994 ), in which the cowt stated: 
Once it is established that the alien's evidence is sufficient to meet three of the criteria listed in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability unless the INS 
sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding that the alien, despite having satisfied 
the criteria, does not meet the extraordinary ability standard. 
In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court (such as 
with Kazarian), we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in 
cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993 ). The 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before us; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. at 719. 
Regardless, the above quote from Buletini indicates that the court considered the possibility that a 
petitioner can submit evidence satisfying three criteria and still not meet the extraordinary ability 
standard ifUSCIS provides specific and substantiated reasoning for its conclusion. See Buletini, 860 F. 
Supp. at 1234. The court in Buletini did not reject at any time the concept of evaluating the quality 
of the evidence presented. Specifically , the court in Buletini acknowledged that "the examiner must 
evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, 
satisfies the criteria." !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, through counsel, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, but the appeal brief does 
not identify any specific prizes or awards or explain how the Director's findings were in error. 
According to the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, he finished in second place in both the 1996 and 1997 
. The Petitioner, however, previously submitted a June 2011 statement from 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
Petitioner asserts that he meets or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
., General Organizer of the Venezuela, 
indicating that the Petitioner achieved a second place finish in the 1996 and a 
third place finish in the 1997 festival. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a copy of an award 
stating that he won second place in the 1996 festival, and May 2007 letters from Mr. 
confirming that he placed second at the 1996 festival and third at the 1997 festival. Moreover, 
Mr. further stated that the "involved [forty] mandolin players of all the 
States of Venezuela and even some regions of our neighboring country Colombia." A competition 
may be open to others from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not 
adequate to establish that an award or prize is nationally or internationally recognized. According to 
an announcement entitled ' '' "[ e ]ach 
State could have only 2 participants in each Category or Level," and that for the "Superior Academic 
Level," in which the Petitioner competed, participants were "students and mandolin players that are 
about to finish their studies or those that have a high performance level of the instrument." Although 
the evidence shows that there were only two participants from each state for each competitive 
category, the evidence does not show how the two participants were selected or who selected them, 
the number of musicians eligible to be nominated as one of the two participants, or whether other 
factors, other than their ability to play the instrument, were considered in the selection of the 
participants. Ultimately, the Petitioner has not demonstrated through objective or independent 
evidence such as, but not limited, to media coverage of the festival or award selections, that his 
second and third place finishes are recognized beyond the entity that organized the 
The Petitioner previously submitted a September 2014 letter from 
stating that the Petitioner "participated in the live recording of ' in the 
in 2002. Ms. asserts that the Petitioner played the viola as a member of the 
an album released by 
Christian singer In addition, the Petitioner submitted a compact disc cover for Mr. 
album that identified the as his accompanying 
orchestra. Ms. further stated that "was nominated to [sic] a m 
2003 for · and and won a in 2003 for a 
" The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the Petitioner's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The record does 
not reflect that the two nominations and the were presented to the 
Petitioner for viola playing rather than to Mr. for the vocal performances on his album. The 
petitioner has provided no evidence of his individual receipt of the for this album. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a September 2014 letter from President of the 
stating that was nominated for 
(2003), (2004), and (2004). Regarding 
the aforementioned nominations, there is no evidence showing that the Petitioner eventually received 
any of the a\vards for which was nominated. Earning nominations is not equivalent to 
receiving nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Mr. 
also stated that "won a " (2003). This 
(b)(6)
Jvfatter of R-M-R-
information is not consistent with the information provided in Ms. letter which stated that 
was "nominated" for a in 2003. 
In support of this criterion, the July 2014 letter accompanying the petition listed vanous 
"acknowledgement letters" from 
and 
, but the submitted evidence does not reflect that 
that the Petitioner was the recipient of 
any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the honors and recognitions 
mentioned in the acknowledgment letters were recognized beyond the issuing organizations at a 
level commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 'members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, but the appeal brief does not 
identify any specific association memberships or explain how the Director's findings \vere in error. 
The petitioner previously submitted a June 2011 letter from 
and President of the 
President of the 
, stating: "[The Petitioner] has 
been chosen to be a member of the 
members of the 
" 
and the All 
are also automatically considered members of the 
The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to show that the associations in which the 
petitioner is a member require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Although Mr. stated that he 
is aware of the Petitioner's talent and listed the purposes of the , he did 
not provide any information on the membership requirements for the , the 
, or the There is no documentary evidence (such 
as bylaws, a constitution, or membership regulations) showing that the aforementioned societies 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. As neither Mr. June 2011 letter nor 
any other evidence in the record establish that any of the societies in which the Petitioner holds 
membership require outstanding achievements or that the outstanding achievements are judged by 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
national or international experts, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
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 classjfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets this regulatory criterion and submits further evidence. 
The Petitioner previously submitted an April 2011 article about him in 
entitled " ., The Petitioner also submitted information from the 
news media directory stating: ' is a daily newspaper in 
Florida, USA covering local news, sports, business, jobs and community events .... 
provides news and information for and about the Hispanic community in 
Florida .... Circulation: 63,445 copies." The director stated that this local community newspaper did 
not qualify as a form of major media. On appeal, the Petitioner submits information from 
stating: "With a total paid daily circulation of over 45,000 and Sunday circulation of over 
48,000, delivers a market segment that can only be reached in Spanish .... 
The is in the FL DMA [Designated Market Area]." 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the circulation of . · elevates it 
to a form of major media relative to other daily newspapers, or that a newspaper with distribution 
mostly limited to southern Florida qualifies as a form of major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner previously submitted (1) a May 11, 2014, article entitled " 
" posted on (2) a May 5, 2010, article entitled "' 
------==== .. " posted on (3) a March 30, 2014, 
article entitled " ======= ======== c::"'-::::.=====--
posted on 
entitled ' 
article entitled " 
(4) a September 29, 2011, article entitled ' 
( 5) a December 19, 2007, 
'' and (6) a March 25, 2011, 
' posted on 
article, 
. the 
With regard to the aforementioned articles, the Petitioner has not shmvn that the preceding Internet 
websites are those of a printed publication that is major media, nor did he submit objective evidence 
(such as online readership data) demonstrating that the websites otherwise constitute major media. 
In today's world, many publications, regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their 
stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement 
meaningless. The petitioner did not establish that international accessibility by itself is a realistic 
indicator of whether a given website is "major media." With regard to the articles in, 
and . the submitted evidence does not show that the newspapers rise to the 
(b)(6)
Matter ofR-M-R-
level of major media. In addition, at least three of the articles mentioned above are not about the 
Petitioner. Specifically, the two " '' online articles and the 
" article are advertisements or announcements 
that describe upcoming performances aimed to attract patrons. Such promotional announcements 
are not about the Petitioner, relating to his work, as required under the plain language of the 
criterion. In addition, the author of the articles was not identified. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes an October 22, 2014, article in 
entitled " " The Petitioner did not submit an 
English language translation of the article as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3), 
which provides in pertinent part: 
Translations. Any document contammg 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. 
Regardless, the October 2014 article in was published subsequent to the petition's 
filing date of July 8, 2014. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we cannot 
consider any articles published after July 8, 2014, as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner also submits his biographic 
profile from the _ website, but 
the date and author of the material were not provided as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the website is a professional or 
major trade publication or form of major media. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence ()[the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the 
H'ork ()[others in the same or an allied field of spec?fication for which class?fication is 
sought. 
The director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. In the 
appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this regulatory criterion. The Petitioner states that 
the Director's May 18, 2011, decision on a previous Form I-140 filed in 2010 indicated that he had 
met this regulatory 
criterion. The Petitioner asserts that the Director's contradictory findings are 
another example of how he "is being treated in a prejudicial fashion" by the service center officer 
who adjudicated the petition. We note that each petition must be decided on a case-by-case basis upon 
review of the evidence of record. Regarding the previous Form I -140 filed in 2010, our July 26, 
2012, appellate decision disagreed with the director's 2011 finding for this criterion and we 
withdrew the favorable determination. Accordingly, the record does not support the Petitioner's 
allegation that he has been treated in a prejudicial fashion. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
With respect to the current Form 1-140, the Petitioner submitted different supporting documentation 
for this regulatory criterion than what he provided in 2010. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted an 
April 2014 letter from Orchestra and Piano Director , . 
stating that the Petitioner served as a judge for the school's orchestra 's viola seating auditions. In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted a June 2014 letter from Executive Director, 
, stating that the Petitioner served as an audition Program Judge. 
The Petitioner also submitted two letters (dated June 2014 and September 2014) from 
; Chairperson , , stating that the Petitioner served as 
an adjudicator in February 2014 for the 
for students in Furthermore, the Petitioner 
submitted a September 2014 letter from Founder of the , an after-
school program that provides children with training from professional musicians and music 
educators, stating that the Petitioner was "part of a panel committee which evaluated and selected 5 
members of the to represent [the] United States at the 
. France in May 2014." 
The Director expressed concern that the preceding evidence was more akin to providing musical 
instruction to students with lesser skills and experience rather than judging other professional 
musicians working in the field. Although the Director's concerns would be relevant to a final merits 
determination, we find that the submitted documentation is sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the field. Therefore, 
the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contribution s of major sign(ficance in thefield 
The director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility fo r this regulatory criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, but the appeal brief does not identify 
any original contributions of major significance or explain how the Director 's findings were in error. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 
Here, the evidence must rise to the level of "original artistic contributions " and must be "of major 
significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted 
inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted numerous letters of support discussing his talent as a violist and mandolinist 
and his music performances. With regard to the reference letters, the Director stated that "none 
identified any specific original contributions to the field of viola or mandolin performance that have 
influenced the field." The Director determined that the submitted evidence was not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
The Petitioner's documentation included a letter from , Executive Director, 
stating: "[The 
Petitioner] has been an extraordinary asset to the development 
of I I programming. His extensive skills and teaching methods has [sic] brought outstanding 
results in our string orchestras and have significantly impact [sic] the lives or our students." Ms. 
described the Petitioner's work for . but did not provide specific examples of how the 
Petitioner 's teaching methods or playing techniques have affected education programs at various 
other music schools, have influenced the work of other instrumentalists, or otherwise equate to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires that the petitioner 's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
limited to the places where he teaches. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding 
that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field 
as a whole). 
Violist and Teacher, Florida, asserted that the 
Petitioner "is a musician and performer of extraordinary abilities." Repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations, however, 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), ajfd , 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, 1997 WL 188942, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 
1997). It is not enough to be a talented musician and to have others attest to that talent. An 
individual must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
Assistant Professor and Director of Orchestral Studies, 
mentioned the Petitioner 's "preparation of a new method to teach string 
instruments to young children using interesting visual animations ," but did not identify any specific 
examples of how the petitioner 's work has influenced the field of music pedagogy or otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. Vague, solicited letters from 
colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide specific examples of 
how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9111 
Cir. 2009). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that this conclusion is "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Owner of Florida, asserted that the Petitioner 's 
"technical Viola Bow-Arm Method style and design is exceptional for Bow technique practice ." In 
addition, Mr. stated : "There is not book that address [sic] bow technique with such detail 
like [the Petitioner's] in the market, and that is why I consider it a major significant contribution to 
the field." The record, however, does not include any documentary evidence showing that various 
music schools have adopted the Petitioner's methodology as part of their teaching curricula, that the 
Petitioner's work has been frequently cited by music scholars, that his practice technique has been 
successfully marketed in the music industry, or that the Petitioner's work otherwise equates to an 
artistic contribution of major significance in the field. 
, Professor of Viola and Chamber Music, stated: "[The 
Petitioner] is contributing to the cultural climate of South Florida by his very active presence on the 
Classical and Pops stage. Several area orchestras enjoy his expertise on the viola." With regard to 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
the Petitioner's musical performances, there is no documentary evidence showing the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other violists in the field or indicating that the field has specifically changed 
as a result of his original work so as to demonstrate the major significance of his contributions. 
, a professional singer and musician, stated: "[The Petitioner] has accompanied me on 
live performances, has also participated in some of my recordings, and has done so with excellence ." 
The petitioner, however, did not submit evidence showing that their music collaborations have 
affected the field of music in a major way, have topped the recording charts for a substantial period of 
time, or have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
, owner of , stated that the Petitioner "participated in the 
CD [compact disc] recording of · _ _ 
release[ d] November 1, 2011, by the artist " In addition, Mr. asserted 
that the Petitioner was the "principal Viola player" on the album that reached number one in the 
"Latin Pop Album" category in November 2011 and January 2012. The Petitioner 
submitted the CD cover for Mr. pop music album which identified more than fifty other 
musicians who similarly contributed to the album. The Petitioner has not shown that his 
participation as part of the orchestra on Mr. album stood apart from that of the numerous 
other instrumentalists or that his viola performances on the album have affected the Latin pop music 
industry at a level indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
President and Founder of the described the 
Petitioner as "a highly educated and accomplished violist" and indicated that he performed with her 
group as principal violist for albums the group recorded for singer entitled "Volare " 
and "White Christmas." There is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner 's viola 
performances on the albums have notably influenced the field or have otherwise risen to the level of 
artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the appeal brief contesting the Director's decision, the Petitioner does not point to any reference 
letters that demonstrate his eligibility for this regulatory criterion. The remaining letters submitted 
in support of the petition, written by the Petitioner's educators and music project collaborators , 
include statements and assertions similar to those previously discussed . Accordingly, they will not 
be specifically and individually discussed in this decision. 
Regardless, none of the submitted letters establish that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identifY specific contributions or their impact in the field 
have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter 
ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements .. . submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way 
questionable "). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. !d. 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"). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially 
impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance , 
the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion . 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this regulatory criterion and submits further evidence. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that he authored a dissertation submitted in 
fulfillment of his Doctor of Musical Arts degree at the in 2013. According to a 
September 2014 letter from Director of the 
provided in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner's doctoral dissertation, entitled" 
-," is accessible in the university's "Libraries' Scholarly Repository" and 
"has been downloaded 1,594 times." The submitted evidence reflects that the University of Miami's 
Libraries' scholarly repository is a digital archive of the university's students' dissertations and not a 
professional or major trade publication or form of major media. Accordingly, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner's doctoral dissertation was published in a professional or major 
trade publication or form of major media. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that he authored three children's books 
and 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided an August 2014 email 
from the United States Copyright Office reflecting that he submitted a "registration claim" for his 
three books on August 25, 2014. On appeal, the petitioner submits an October 2014 email from 
a company that prints books on demand for self-publishing 
authors, thanking the Petitioner for his book order and stating that he was "officially published ." 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his three children's books are scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Fwthermore, the submitted evidence 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's books had been published as of July 8, 2014, when the 
petition was filed. Again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-M-R-
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The Director's RFE informed the Petitioner that this regulatory criterion "is intended for visual 
artists," but the Petitioner's response did not address the issue. Accordingly, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this regulatory criterion . On appeal , 
the Petitioner asserts that he meets this regulatory criterion, but he does not offer any arguments or 
evidence to overcome the director's determination on the issue. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[ e ]vidence of the 
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner is a 
musician. When the Petitioner plays before an audience, he is not displaying his music in the same 
sense that a painter or sculptor displays his or her work in a gallery or museum. The petitioner is 
performing his music. In addition, to the extent that the petitioner is a musician, it is inherent to his 
occupation to perform and play music. 
The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply 
to every occupation. 3 The interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts 
is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -820-
ECR-RJJ at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a 
performing artist do not fall under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the Petitioner is not a visual artist 
and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, he has not 
submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
In light of the above , the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, but the appeal brief does not 
identify any of the Petitioner's leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation , or explain how the Director's findings were in error. 
The July 2014 letter accompanying the petition specifically mentioned the Petitioner's work for the 
" _ " The September 20 14 letter from stated 
that the Petitioner is one the "Florida-based Teaching Artists" who serve on the 
faculty. Mr. further stated: 
3 Music performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), which focuses on volume of sales and receipts as a measure of the petitioner's 
commercial success in the performing arts. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter C?f R-M-R-
Only 25 professionals are chosen annually, out of a competitive pool of accomplished 
applicants. Prior to working with students, Teaching Artists attend a Teaching Artists 
Training Program which provides them with comprehensive and meaningful professional 
development and practical tools that serve to empower them to become 21st century teaching 
artists, thereby creating a thriving culture of teaching artists in South Florida. 
In addition, the June 2014 letter from asserted that the Petitioner "has brought 
outstanding results in _ J string orchestras and have significantly impact [sic] the lives of our 
students." Ms. does not provide specific examples of any results achieved by string 
students at who were instructed by the Petitioner after he completed the aforementioned 
trammg program. Moreover, neither of the preceding letters explains how the Petitioner's students 
performed at a higher level than those of the other Teaching Artists. 
In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy 
and duties of an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of the 
petitioner's contributions to the organization or establishment's operational viability. The Petitioner 
did not provide an organizational chart or other 
similar evidence to establish where his role fit within 
the overall hierarchy of or its student orchestra. The submitted documentation does not 
differentiate the Petitioner from the other teaching artists so as to demonstrate his leading role, 
and does not establish that his instruction contributed to the orchestra in a way that was of substantial 
importance to its success or standing. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
the orchestra has a distinguished reputation relative to oth~r orchestras in the United States. 
Finally, although the Petitioner has also submitted evidence showing that he has performed with the 
and other musical groups, the Petitioner has not shown 
that he has performed a leading or critical role for these organizations or establishments, or that these 
organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box o.ffice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The director determined that the Petitioner had not established the eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments. When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.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. 2011) (plaintiffs claims abandoned 
when not 
raised on appeal). Accordingly , the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
14 
Matter of R-M-R-
B. Summary 
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 individual has . achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has 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.P.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 in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-Af-R-, ID# 13044 (AAO Sept. 9, 2015) 
4 
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)(1)(ii); see 
also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(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). 
15