dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

(b)(6)
Date: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
NOV 1 2 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
APPLICATION: 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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~rzt;_-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on December 5, 2012 and reaffirmed that decision on motion on May 8, 2013. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) as an appeal of the director's decision on the 
motion. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, as a musician and 
music instructor, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by 
requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of 
such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
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. The director reached this 
conclusion after determining that the petitioner did not meet any of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). More specifically, with respect to the criteria for which the petitioner submitted 
related evidence, the director concluded that the petitioner (1) had not established that the musical 
groups of which she is a member are associations that require outstanding achievements; (2) submitted 
advertisements rather than published materials that were about her, relating to her work; (3) provided 
letters that did not specifically explain her impact in the field consistent with contributions of major 
significance in the field; (4) had not established the display of her work as a music instructor; (5) had 
not documented that the schools she founded enjoy a distinguished reputation; and (6) had not 
documented the commercial success of her compact discs. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider requesting that the director consider 
additional evidence pertaining to additional criteria as an alien of extraordinary ability under the 
regulations. The director accepted the motion but concluded that the petitioner failed to overcome the 
grounds for denial. Specifically, the director concluded that the petitioner's letter confirming that she 
had founded two schools and hired ten employees and general attestations of her talent and knowledge 
did not serve to overcome the lack of the requisite initial evidence satisfying at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erroneously based his determination largely as a music 
instructor and that the bulk of her documentation was in support of her claim as a musician of 
extraordinary ability. She further asserts generally that the evidence she previously submitted meets 
three of the regulatory criteria. The petitioner also vaguely references the problems of a woman artist in 
an Islamic country and submits additional support letters, along with background information about the 
authors of the letters. Finally, the petitioner submitted two licenses, one of which postdates the filing of 
the petition, and a contract which postdates the filing of the petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides, in pertinent part, the AAO "shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
In this case, the petitioner did not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact in the director's May 8, 2013 denial. As noted above, the petitioner asserts that the director's 
original decision on the petition erroneously focused on the petitioner's eligibility as a music instructor, 
rather than as a musician. The director on August 2, 2012, issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) to the 
petitioner, instructing the petitioner to supplement the record with additional evidence of her eligibility. 
In her response to the RFE, dated October 15, 2012, the petitioner stated: "Although, I work as female 
music director, instructor and musician, but my main field of endeavor as a founder, manager and 
instructor, is music instructor. Therefore, my extraordinary ability as a competitor is music 
instructor." (Bold emphasis in original.) Consequently, the record does not support the petitioner's 
current assertion that the director should have based the decision on a claim as a musician. Moreover, 
the only criterion under which the director made the distinction between ability as a musician and ability 
as a music instructor is under the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Under other criteria, 
the director considered the petitioner's evidence (membership in musical groups, advertisements of 
performances, compact discs), but concluded that the evidence did not meet the plain language 
requirements of the criteria. Accordingly, the petitioner's passing reference to her area of expertise 
without further discussion is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. See Desravines v. U.S. Atty. 
Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11
1
h Cir. 2009). While the petitioner states that "all of the documents 
(national and international) evidences that I submitted previously would satisfy the three criteria," she 
does not specify which three criteria she satisfies or identify any specific error of law or fact in the 
director's decisions. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that 
ground on appeal. Id. 
As with the letters submitted on motion, the new letters merely praise the petitioner's ability as a 
musician and entrepreneur without addressing any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
These new letters do not point to any error of law or fact in the director's previous decisions. Regarding 
the license and contract that postdate the filing of the petition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1971). The one license that predates the filing of the petition is not relevant evidence for 
the classification sought. Rather, licenses can be relevant evidence for the lesser classification set 
forth at section 203(b)(2) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
As the petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.