dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W, MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
JUL062012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Please
beadvisedthat any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemustbe madeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motion to be filed
within 30 daysof thedecisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew'
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,andisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappeal
will bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe
requisiteextraordinaryabilityandfailedto submitextensivedocumentationof sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednational or internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of hisorherachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The
petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselclaimsthatthepetitionermeetsatleastthreeof theregulatorycriteriaat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3).Moreover,attheinitial filing of thepetitionor in responsetothedirector'snoticeof
intentto denypursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8),counselclaimedthepetitioner's
eligibility for all tenof theregulatorycategoriesof evidenceat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). In the director'sdecision.he determinedthatthepetitioneronly metthepublishedmaterial
criterionpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Onappeal,counselonlycontested
the director's decisionregardingthe awardscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),thejudgingcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),the
originalcontributionscriterionpursuanttotheregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),theleadingor
criticalrolepursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii),andthehighsalarycriterion
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The AAO, therefore,considersthe
uncontestedcriteriaon appealto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,
1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9
(E.D.N.Y.Sept.30, 2011)(thecourtfoundthe plaintiff s claimsto beabandonedashe failedto
raisethemonappealtotheAAO).
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
Page3
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif -
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United Statesto
continueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very highstandardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101®tCong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonlytothoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Id.; 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulation at 8 C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstratethe alien's
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof his or herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
establishedeither through evidenceof a one-time achievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencelistedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiled underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsabout the significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meet thosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-
22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," andif the
1Specifically,thecourt statedthatthe AAO hadunilaterally imposednovel substantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypes of evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewthe
evidenceundertheplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnot
submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitioner
hasfailedtosatisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
III. TRANSLATIONS
While not addressedby the directorin his decision,the recordof proceedingreflectsthat the
petitioner submittednon-certifiedEnglish languagetranslations,partial translations,and foreign
languagedocumentswithout any English languagetranslations. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)providesin pertinentpart:
(3) Translations.Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCIS
shallbeaccompaniedby afull Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhas
certifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor she
iscompetenttotranslatefromtheforeignlanguageintoEnglish.
TheAAO notesthatalthoughatthetimeof theoriginalfiling of thepetitionthepetitionersubmitted
a singlecertifiedtranslation,it is unclearwhich documents,if any, to which the certification
pertains. For example,the translatorindicatedthat the certification covered"Letters of
recognition,""Lettersof recommendation,""Awards received,"and "Interviewsin News [sicj
papers,Magazines."The translatorfailedto identifywhich documents,if any,werespecifically
translatedby her. The submissionof a singletranslationcertificationthatdoesnot specifically
identifythedocumentor documentsit purportedlyaccompaniesdoesnotmeettherequirementsof
theregulationat8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).It is notedthatthepetitionerfailedtosubmitanycertified
translationsin responseto the director's notice of intent to deny or on appeal. Becausethe
petitionerfailed to complywith theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§103.2(b)(3),theAAO cannotdetermine
whethertheevidencesupportsthepetitioner'sclaims. Accordingly,theevidenceis not probative
andwill notbeaccordedanyweightin thisproceeding.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
2On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot clairn to rnectany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
On appeal,counselclaimsthepetitioner'seligibility for this criterionbasedon herreceiptof the
GoldenMaradeVenezuela(1992),theDamadela CancionAwardby HoraEspecial(1997),and
theMusicalExcellenceAwardbyLeoninversionesXXI (1998).
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein
the field of endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burdento establisheligibility for every
elementof thiscriterion. Not only mustthepetitionerdemonstrateherreceiptof prizesandawards,
shemustalsodemonstratethatthoseprizesandawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized
for excellencein thefield of endeavor.In otherwords,thepetitionermustestablishthatherprizes
and awardsare recognizednationallyor internationallyfor excellencein the field beyondthe
awardingentities.
RegardingtheGoldenMaradeVenezuela,thepetitionersubmitteda letterfrom
whostatedthathe:
[CJertifiesthat, Internationalsinger[the petitioner]recordedin 1992,at Melody
RecordingStudios,ownedby me,a CD called"EspecialmenteRomantica"which
received the International Award "The Golden Mara of Venezuela" for best
RomanticProductionof theyearin 1992.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)providesin pertinentpart:
(i) The non-existenceor other unavailabilityor requiredevidencecreatesa
presumptionof ineligibility. If a requireddocument,suchasa birth or marriage
certificate,doesnot exist or cannotbe obtained,an applicantor petitionermust
demonstratethisandsubmitsecondaryevidence,suchaschurchor schoolrecords,
pertinentto thefactatissue.If secondaryevidencealsodoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtained,theapplicantor petitionermustdemonstratetheunavailabilityof boththe
required documentand relevant secondaryevidence,and submit two or more
affidavits,sworn to or affirmed by personswho arenot partiesto the petition who
have direct personalknowledgeof the event and circumstances.Secondary
evidencemustovercometheunavailabilityof primaryevidence,andaffidavitsmust
overcometheunavailabilityof bothprimaryandsecondaryevidence.
As indicatedabove,the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i)providesthat the non-existenceor
unavailabilityof requiredevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. Accordingto thesame
regulation,onlywherethepetitionerdemonstratesthatprimaryevidencedoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtainedmay the petitionerrely on secondaryevidenceandonly wheresecondaryevidenceis
demonstratedto beunavailablemaythepetitionerrely on affidavits. Mr. letterdoes
notconstituteprimaryevidence,asopposedto documentaryevidencefrom theawardingentity,or
evensecondaryevidence,of thepetitioner'sreceiptof theGoldenMaradeVenezuela.In addition,
while theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i)providesfor thesubmissionof affidavitswhenthe
Page6
petitionerdemonstratesthat primary evidenceor secondaryevidencedoesnot exist or cannotbe
obtained,whichshedid not,Mr. letteris not an affidavitasit wasnot swornto or
affirmedby thedeclarantbeforeanofficerauthorizedto administeroathsor affirmationswhohas,
havingconfirmedthedeclarant'sidentity,administeredtherequisiteoathor affirmation.SeeBlack's
Law Dictionary58 (9th Ed.,West2009). Nor, in lieu of havingbeensignedbeforean officer
authorizedto administeroathsor affirmations,doesit containtherequisitestatement,permittedby
Federallaw, that the signer,in signingthe statement,certifiesthe truth of the statement,under
penaltyof perjury. 28 U.S.C.§ 1746. Further,theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i)requiresthesubmissionof morethanoneaffidavitin whichthepetitionersubmitted
onlyoneletter.
The petitioner also submitted a screenshot from Mr. website,
which claimed that the petitioner received the Golden Mara de
Venezuela. However,the self-promotionalclaims on Mr. websitedo not constitute
primary evidenceof the petitioner's receiptof the award pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2).Moreover,thepetitionersubmitteda copyof a DVD thatcounselclaimedwasan
interview from a television programentitled, "They Are Latins," along with an uncertifiedand
summarytranslationof the interview that purportedlyindicatedthat the petitioner"obtainedthe
internationalaward 'Mara de Oro' of Venezuelafor best romantic record of the year" The
petitionerfailedto submita full andcertifiedtranslationof theinterviewasrequiredpursuanttothe
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Furthermore,theself-proclaimedreceiptof anawardfrom a
television interview is not primary evidence of the petitioner's receipt of the award. The
documentaryevidencesubmittedby thepetitioneris insufficientto demonstrateherreceiptof the
GoldenMaradeVenezuelaandis insufficientto establishthatit is a nationallyor internationally
recognizedprize or awardfor excellencein the field pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i).
RegardingtheDamadela CancionAwardby HoraEspecialandtheMusicalExcellenceAwardby
LeonInversionesXXI, the petitionersubmitteduncertifiedEnglishlanguagetranslationsof the
documents.As thepetitionerfailedto complywith theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),the
AAO cannotdeterminewhethertheevidencesupportsthe petitioner'sclaims of herreceiptof the
awards. Moreover,thepetitionerfailed to submitany documentaryevidencereflectingthatthe
awardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor.
On appeal,counsel claims that "the meaning and the significanceof the awards are clearly
establishedby thetitlesof theawards."TheAAO is not persuadedby counsel'sassertions.The
plain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresthatthepetitioner'sawardsbe
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedin the field of endeavor,andit is herburdento establish
every elementof this criterion. However,an award with "National," "International,"or
"Excellence"in thetitle doesnotautomaticallyelevatetheawardto a nationallyor internationally
recognizedaward. In fact, it doesnot necessarilydemonstratethat the awardsare nationalor
internationalin nature. Without documentaryevidencereflectingthe nationalor international
recognitionfor excellenceof theaward,it is insufficienttoconcludebasedonthenameof theaward
Page7
thattheawardis nationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellencein the field consistentwith
theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or
othermajor media,relating to thealien's work in thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethetitle, date,and author of thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerestablishedeligibility for this criterion. The plain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R,§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterialaboutthe
alienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'swork in
thefield for whichclassificationis sought."In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis
criterion, it must be primarily aboutthe petitionerand,as statedin the regulations,be printed in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor media. To qualify as majormedia,the
publicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchas
theNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyasmajormediabecause
of significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers/ Furthermore,theplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat"[s]uchevidenceshallinclude
thetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation."Basedupona reviewof
therecordof proceeding,theAAO mustwithdrawthefindingsof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerclaimedeligibility for this criterionbasedentirelyon foreignlanguagedocuments
that were not accompaniedby full and certifiedEnglishlanguagetranslations.Again, as the
petitionerfailedto complywith theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(3)and204.5(h)(3)(iii),the
AAO cannot determinewhether the evidencesupportsthe petitioner's claims. Moreover, the
uncertifiedtranslationsfailed to includethe authorsof the majority of the material,aswell asthe
title anddatefor others,asrequiredpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).Finally,
the petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidenceestablishingthat the material was
publishedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. Simplysubmitting
documentaryevidenceof publishedmaterialis insufficientto meet this criterion unlessthe
petitionerdemonstratesthatthematerialwaspublishedin professionalor majortradepublications
or othermajormediapursuantto theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
The AAO notesthat severalof the purportedtranslationsassertedthat the publicationswere
"major." Forexample,forthearticlesentitled,"TributetotheMaestro,"and"SpeciallyRomantic,"
the translator assertedthat the sourceswere "lil Mundo, Mayor [sic] Dayly [sic] Evening
Newspaper"and "El Diario De Caracas,Mayor [sic] NewsPaper[sic]." As requiredin the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b),thetranslatormustcertifythatthetranslationis "completeand
accurate." The translator'spersonalassertionsare not reflectiveof "completeand accurate"
Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividuaFsreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page8
translationsof thedocuments.Moreover,evenif thetranslationswerecertified,which theyclearly
are not, the numerousspellingerrorsthroughoutthe translationsquestionthe competencyand
credibilityof thetranslator.
Althoughthepetitionersubmittednumerousdocumentsfor thiscriterion,noneof thedocumentary
evidencecomplieswith theregulationat8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(3)and204.5(h)(3)(iii).Thetruthis
to be determinednot by thequantityof evidencealonebut by its quality. Matter of Chawathe,25
I&N Dec.369(AAO2010)citingMatterof'E-M-20l&N Dec.77,80(Comm'r1989).Therefore,
thepetitionerfailedto establishthatshehashadpublishedmaterialabouther in professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormediaconsistentwith theplainlanguageof theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As such,the AAO withdrawsthe decisionof the directorfor this
entenon.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailed to establishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation, eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge of
the work of^others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)requires"[e]videnceof thealien's
participation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asajudgeof thework of othersin thesameor an
allied field of specificationfor which classificationis sought." On appeal,counselclaims:
The Petitioneroffers asevidencedocumentationrequestingher to serveasajudge
for the2009PremioEstrellaMusicAwardswhichtookplacein November2009in
Miami,Florida.. . . Additionally,thePetitionerhasservedasthejudgeof othersin
the field at the FoundationInternationalFestivalof Music of the Hati]]o. [The
petitioner]wasinvitedto serveasajudgefor thiseventon two occasions,in 1994
and1995.. . . ThePetitionerwasalsoinvitedto serveasaqualifyingjudgefor the
Lation[sic]AmericanMusicFestival,sponsoredby theTeresaCarrenoFoundation.
Regardingthepurported2009PremioEstrellaMusicAwards,eligibility mustbeestablishedat the
time of filing. The petitionwas filed on July 22, 2009. However,counselclaimedthat the
petitioner'sjudgingattheeventoccurredin November2009.Therefore,theAAO will notconsider
thisclaimasevidenceto establishthepetitioner'seligibility. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter
ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'lComm'r 1971).A petitioncannotbeapprovedata future
dateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleundera newsetof facts.MatterofIzummi,22I&N Dec.
169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterofBardouille,18I&N Dec.
114(BIA 1981),that USCIScannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto beingonly subsequentto the
filing of apetition."Id. at176.
Regardingthe petitioner'spurportedjudgingat theFoundationInternationalFestivalof Musicof
the Hatillo andthe I2tin AmericanMusic Festival,aswell as the 2009PremioEstrellaMusic
Awards, the petitionersubmittedforeign languagedocumentswithout certified English language
Page9
translationspursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(3). As the translationsare not
certified,they fail to supportcounsel'sclaim that the petitionerhasjudgedthe work of others
pursuantto the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). It is notedthat
regardingthe Latin AmericanMusic FestivaLthe plain languageof this regulatorycriterion
specificallyrequires"the alien'sparticipation. . . asthejudgeof thework of others";the mere
invitationtoserveasajudgeisinsufficientwithoutevidenceof actuallyjudgingtheworkof others.
Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,thepetitionerfailedto demonstratethatshehasservedasajudge
of theworkof othersin thesameor analliedfieldof specificationfor whichclassificationissought
at the time of the filing of the petition consistentwith the plain languageof the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific.scholarly,artistic, athletic. or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof thealien's
originalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,orbusiness-relatedcontributionsof majorsignificance
in thefield." Here,theevidencemustbe reviewedto seewhetherit risesto thelevelof original
artistic-relatedcontributions"of majorsignificancein thefield." Thephrase"majorsignificance"is
notsuperfluousand,thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultiple InvestorFund,LP.,
51F.3d28,31(3 Cir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d619,626(2"dCir.Sep15,2003).
On appeal,counselclaimsthe petitioner'seligibility for this criterionbasedon recommendation
t er
arenot certifiedby the translatorasrequiredpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b).
Therefore,theAAO cannotdeterminewhetherthetranslationssupporttheclaimsof theauthorsof
therecommendationletters.
It is notedthatwhile therecommendationletterspraisethepetitionerasa singerandmakegeneral
assertions,suchas"[thepetitioner)is asingerof wideprofessionalexperience,whosevocalquality,
histrionicsperformances,andfame,hasmadeherwell knownnationwideaswell asinternationally
none of them make any indicationof any original contributionsof major
significancein thefield. Thelettersprovideonlygeneralstatementswithoutofferinganyspecific
information to establishhow the petitioner's work has beenof major significance. In fact, in
counsel'sbrief, he failed to identify a singleoriginal contributionthat hasbeenmadeby the
petitioner,let alonean originalcontributionof majorsignificancein the field. Instead,counsel
briefly claimsthat the "lettersconfirm the Petitioner'snationaland internationalsuccessas a
recordingartist andperformingsinger." Again, the lettersbriefly indicatethe petitioner'stalents,
suchas "the petitionerhasshownan exceptionalanddisciplinedbehavior,consistentandvery
professional,in anoutsideof thescenarios(M) and"[the petitioner]hascaptivatedwith her
voice andpresencethepublic that admiresher andappreciatesherasan artist of quality
Page10
," without explaininghow her talentscanbc consideredoriginalcontributionsof major
significancein thefield. Moreover,assumingthe petitioner'sskills areunique,theclassification
soughtwas not designedmerelyto alleviateskill shortagesin a given field. In fact, that issue
properlyfallsunderthejurisdictionof theDepartmentof læborthroughthealienemploymentlabor
certificationprocess.SeeMatter of NewYorkStateDepartmentof Transportation,22 [&N Dec.
215,221(Comm'r1998).
This regulatorycriterion not only requiresthe petitionerto make original contributions,the
regulatorycriterionalsorequiresthosecontributionsto beof majorsignificance.TheAAO is not
persuadedby vague,solicitedlettersthatsimplyrepeattheregulatorylanguagebutdo notexplain
howthe petitioner'scontributionshavealreadyinnuencedthe field. Vague,solicitedlettersfrom
localcolleaguesthatdonotspecificallyidentifycontributionsor providespecificexamplesof how
thosecontributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient.Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036
(9thCir. 2009)affd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).In 2010,theKazariancourtreiterated
thatthe AAO's conclusionthatthe "lettersfrom physicsprofessorsattestingto [thepetitioner's]
contributionsin thefield" wereinsufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatorylanguage."
596F.3dat 1122. Moreover,thelettersconsideredaboveprimarilycontainbareassertionsof the
petitioner'sstatusin thefield without providingspecificexamplesof how thosecontributionsriseto
a levelconsistentwith majorsignificancein thefield. Merelyrepeatingthelanguageof thestatute
or regulationsdoesnotsatisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.Co, Ltd. v.Sava,724F.
Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir. 1990);Avyr Associates,Inc. v.
Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.).Thelackof supportingevidencegivestheAAO no
basisto gaugethesignificanceof thepetitioner'spresentcontributions.Further,USCISmay,in its
discretion,useasadvisoryopinionstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.SeeMatterof Caron
Internationa/,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r 1988). However,USCISis ultimatelyresponsible
for makingthe final determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. The
submissionof lettersof supportfromthepetitioner'spersonalcontactsis notpresumptiveevidence
of eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whethertheysupportthealien's
eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatterof V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,n.2(BIA 2008). Thus,the
contentof the writers' statementsand how they becameawareof the petitioner'sreputationare
importantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin
supportof an immigration petition arc of lessweight than preexisting,independentevidenceof
originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Again,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof the
alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significancein theffeld [emphasisadded}." Without additional,specificevidenceshowingthatthe
petitioner'swork has beenunusuallyinfluential,widely appliedthroughouther field, or has
otherwiserisento thelevelof contributionsof majorsignificance,theAAO cannotconcludethat
shemeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly.thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Page11
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
Theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[ejvidencethatthe
alienhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded]." In general,a leadingroleis evidencedfrom therole
itself,andacriticalroleisonein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor thesuccessor standingof the
organizationor establishment.
Onappeal,counselclaims:
[T]he Petitionerprovidedevidencethat [the petitioner]hasa successful,award
winningrecordingcareerin whichshehasperformedin aleadingor criticalrolefor
organizationsor establishments.Specifically,[the petitioner]hasappearedwith
otherleadinginternationallyrecognizedartistsasaperformer,presenterandjudgein
internationallyrecognizedawardsceremoniesof distinguishedreputations. . . and
shewastheleadperformeron herBillboardtoppinghits. . . andshewasthefocus
of atelevisionprogramonamajorVenezuelatelevisionstationwith a distinguished
reputationwhichservesaninternationalmarket.
Counselreferstodocumentationthathasalreadybeendiscussedundertheawardscriterionpursuant
to theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)andthejudging criterionpursuantto theregulationat8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(viii).TheAAO will notpresumethatevidencerelatingtoor evenmeetingthe
awardscriterionandthejudging criterionis presumptiveevidencethatthepetitioneralsomeetsthis
criterion. To holdotherwisewouldrendermeaninglesstheregulatoryrequirementthatapetitioner
meetat leastthreeseparatecriteria. Moreover,thedocumentaryevidencereferencedby counsel,as
alreadydiscussed,was submittedwithout certified English languagetranslationsas required
pursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).In fact,thetelevisioninterviewreferencedby
counselwasa purportedsummarytranslationof theinterviewandwasnot a "full" and"complete
andaccurate"translation.
It is notedthat theAAO is not persuadedthat sporadic,occasional,or one-timeparticipationat an
eventis reflectiveof leadingor criticalrolesfor organizationsor establishmentsasawhole. While
the petitioner submittedself-promotionalevidenceregardingthe judging competitions,the
petitionerfailed to submit certified translationsof the documentsand failed to submit any
independent,objectiveevidencedemonstratingthat the organizationsor establishmentshavea
distinguishedreputation.SeeBragav.Fordos,No.CV 065105SJO(C.D. CA July6, 2007)aff"d
2009WL 604888(9* Cir. 2009)(concludingthattheAAO did not haveto rely on self-serving
assertionson the coverof a magazineasto the magazme'sstatusasmajor media). Similarly,
counselfailedto establishhowbeinginterviewedonetimefor a televisionprogramon thestation
"Televen"demonstratesaleadingor criticalroleto thetelevisionstationasawhole. Moreover,no
documentaryevidencewassubmittedto showthat"Televen"hasadistinguishedreputation.
Page12
Again, theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"le]videncethat
thealienhasperformedin a leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation."Theburdenis onthepetitionertoestablishthatshemeetseveryelement
of thiscriterion.Withoutdocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitionerhasperformedin
aleadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation,the
AAO cannotconcludethatthepetitionermeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other significandyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix)requires"[elvidencethatthealien
hascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor services,in relationto
othersin thefield." Onappeal,counselclaims:
The Petitionerregularly receivesmcomefrom performances,appearancesand
royaltiesfromhertwentyplusyearcareerasaninternationallyacclaimedartist.. .
[T]he Petitionerearnedover $70,000in royaltiesandpersonalappearancesalone
[emphasisin original] in 2008, not including performancesand revenuefrom
concerts.Of equalimportancehereis thatthisfigureonlyrepresentsaportionof the
Petitioner'snetannualincome.As anindependentartist,[thepetitioner]alsoenjoys
therevenuereceivedfromproduction,salesanddistributionof herwork. . . . [T]he
OccupationalInformationNetwork(O*NET)reportsthatthe2009prevailingwage
(grossincome)for the most [emphasisin original] experiencedsingersin Miami,
Florida(wherethepetitionerislocated)is$59.093annually.
A reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionersubmittedseveralforeignlanguage
documentswithout any translations,as well as documentaryevidencewithout any certified
translations.As thepetitionerfailed to complywith the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),the
evidenceis not probativeandwill not be accordedany weight in this proceeding. Moreover,the
recordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionersubmittedthefollowing documentation:
1. A letterfrom C.A. who indicatedthatthe "record
companyhas paid the artist and singer [the petitioner] a total amountof
10.000BsFin royalties.for thesellingof herCD record'Travesuras
2. A letterfrom whostatedthatthepetitioner"received
totalearningsfortheamountof 120.000BsFduringtheyear2008"basedon
differentshows,performancesandpresentations;and
3. TworoyaltychecksfromSACVENin theamountof 2.670.66.BsF
Page13
It is notedthatthepetitionersubmittedascreenshotfrom www.xe.comreflectingthattheexchange
ratefor the total of 132,670.66BsF equatesto $61,717.28.Althoughthe petitionersubmitted
primaryevidenceregardingitem3, thepetitionerfailedto submitprimaryevidenceof theroyalties
from"Travesuras"andearningsfromshows,performances,andpresentationsregardingitemsI and
2. In fact, Ms. letterfailed to providespecificinformationreflectinghow muchthe
petitioner earnedfrom each engagementand failed to identify the shows, performances,and
presentations.
Notwithstandingthe above,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix)
requires"[e]videncethat the alien has commandeda high salaryor other significantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin the field [emphasisadded]." Basedon the
documentationsubmittedby thepetitioner,shedoesnotcommanda salary;ratherthepetitioneris
compensatedby theremunerationof herservices,suchasroyaltiesfrom thesalesof herwork and
her appearancesat vanousengagements.Therefore,the petitionermustestablishthatsheearns
"other significantly high remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin the field" ratherthan
commandinga high salary. However,thepetitionerfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidence
demonstratingthattheremunerationfor herservicesissignificantlyhighin relationtoothersingers.
It is notedthatcounselsubmittedonappealascreenshotfrom reflectingthe
Level1- 4 Wagesfor musiciansandsingersin theMiami,Floridaandsurroundingarea.However,
thescreenshotdoesnot reflecttheremunerationfor servicesof singers,soasto demonstratethatthe
petitioner'sremunerationis significantlyhigh. Even if the Ixvel 1 - 4 Wagesincludedthe
remunerationfor servicesof singers,which it doesnot,the screenshotindicatesmedianregional
wagestatisticsanddoesnotestablishthatasalaryis highin relationtoothersingersasawholeand
notlimitedtotheMiamiandsurroundingareas.
Theevidencesubmittedbythepetitionerdoesnotestablishthatshehascommandedahighsalaryor
other significantly high remunerationfor servicesin relation to experiencedprofessionalsin her
occupation.SeeMatter of Price, 20 I&N Dec.953,954 (Assoc.Comm'r 1994)(consideringa
professionalgolfer'searningsversusotherPGA Tour golfers);seealsoGrimsonv. INS, 934F.
Supp.965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996)(consideringNHL enforcer'ssalaryversusotherNHL enforcers);
Muni v.INS,891F. Supp.440,444-45(N. D. Ill. 1995)(comparingsalaryof NHL defensiveplayer
tosalaryof otherNHL defensemen).TheAAO notesthatinMatterofRacine,1995WL 153319at
*4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]he plain readingof thestatutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparisonis
nota comparisonof Racine'sability with thatof all thehockeyplayersatall levels
of play;butrather,Racine'sabilityasa professionalhockeyplayerwithin theNHL
Thisinterpretationis consistentwith atleastoneothercourtin thisdistrict,Grimson
v.INS,No.93C 3354,(N.D.Ill. September9, 1993),andthedefinitionof theterm
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h_)Q),andthediscussionsetforthin thepreambleat56 Fed.Reg.
60898-99.
Page14
Again, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)requires"[e]videncethat
the alienhascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor services,in
relationto othersin thefield [emphasisadded]." The petitioner'ssubmissionof documentary
evidencesimplyreflectingthatshehasbeenremuneratedfor herservicesis insufficienttomeetthe
plain languageof the regulationwithout documentaryevidencecomparingher remunerationto
othersin the field, so as to establishthat the petitionerhas commandedsignificantlyhigh
remunerationforservices.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitioncrhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
V. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Even if the petitionerhad submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof that smallpercentage
who haverisento the very top of the[irJ field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise."8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While the
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageattheverytopof thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin afinalmeritsdetermination.4Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthe
petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
at 1122.
Thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
4TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d143, 145(3d Cir.
2004). In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdiction toconducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice
that madethe last decisionin this matter. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealso section103(a)(1)of the Act; section
204(b)of theAct; DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec.458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holdingthat legacyINS, now
USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).
Page15
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.