dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

identiQing dzta deleted to 
prevcnt cl a;ly unwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUlmC copy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 7 2009 
LIN 07 078 50134 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 4 103..5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
f ~ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. Significantly, on May 23, 2007, the 
director issued a request for evidence (WE). The request was sent to counsel at her current address and 
advised that a failure to respond would result in the petition being considered abandoned. The director 
received no response. Rather than deny the petition for abandonment pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(13), which provides that the director "may" summarily deny a petition for 
abandonment due to a failure to respond to an RFE, the director denied the petition on its merits. As 
the decision was denied on its merits, an appeal is 
Nevertheless, we will not consider new evidence submitted on appeal insofar as it addresses concerns 
raised by the director in the WE. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established as of the time 
the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). Where, as here, a petitioner has been put 
on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, she should have submitted the 
documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO 
need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence that should have been submitted in 
response to the WE but is only now submitted on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
I 
 A petition denied for abandonment may not be appealed. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(15). 
Page 3 
(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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifl the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a pianist. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the director implied that an accompanist can never qualifj for the 
classification sought. We do not read the director's decision as suggesting this conclusion. In fact, the 
director only mentioned that the petitioner is an accompanist twice. The first mention of the 
petitioner's work as an accompanist was to note that the published material focused on the artists the 
petitioner accompanied. As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material 
"about" the petitioner, the director's focus on the subject of the articles was not unfairly prejudicial. 
The second reference to the petitioner as an accompanist was where the director acknowledged that the 
petitioner is a talented artist who is sought by others as an accompanist. The director then noted that 
there is no blanket rule presuming athletes performing at the major league level must be eligible for this 
classification. See the commentary at 56 Fed. Reg. 60899 (Nov. 29, 1991). The director's point was 
that merely performing at the top professional level, while probative, is not sufficient. Nothing in this 
paragraph suggests that only soloist musicians can qualify for the classification sought. That said, the 
alien must still establish individual national or international acclaim; we do not infer acclaim from 
association alone. Such acclaim, however, can be earned even for a musician who does not perform 
alone. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a 1993 two-paragraph article in the New York Times reporting that the 
petitioner had won the first prize at the Leschetizky Association's 14' New York Debut Competition 
and a lengthy press release from the Leschetizky Association also announcing the petitioner's win. The 
record contains no evidence that the press release was ever published in the media in full. The press 
release indicates that the competition is open to "pianists from age 18 to 30 who are prepared to make 
their New York debut." Thus, it would not appear that the most experienced and renowned pianists or 
those who have already performed in New York compete for this prize. 
The petitioner also submitted her 1990 
 prize at the Priscilla Morneault Piano Competition 
sponsored by the Portland Symphony Orchestra (PSO). A letter from Director of 
Education at the PSO congratulates the petitioner on her award. A program for the competition 
indicates that first prize wins $2,500 and a contract to perform with the PSO on a specific date, second 
prize wins $750 and third prize wins $500. The upcoming finals were reported in an unidentified 
newspaper and the results of the competition were reported in the Portland, Maine Evening Express. 
The petitioner also submitted a May 13, 1994 letter from President of the Cleveland 
Institute of Music (CIM), congratulating the petitioner for winning the Rosa Lobe Memorial Award 
presented by the Cleveland Heights Alumni Chapter of Mu Phi Epsilon, an international professional 
music fraternity. Mr. also congratulates the petitioner for winning the Arthur Loesser Prize 
from the music department at CIM. The petitioner received her Master of Music Degree from CIM on 
May21, 1994. 
In 1991, the petitioner competed at the 
 at the Augusta College in 
Georgia. The record contains no evidence as to how the petitioner placed at this competition. In the 
same year she received sixth prize at the Cleveland International Piano Competition. Internet materials 
about the competition, submitted by the petitioner, indicates that the competition is one of only four 
solo piano competitions in the United States recognized by the International Federation of World Music 
Competitions in Geneva, Switzerland. A sixth place finish, however, is not a prize or award. Finally, 
in 1998 through 2000, the petitioner received a scholarship to attend the New England Conservatory. 
, an associate principal clarinetist for the Boston Symphony Orchestra, asserts that 
the petitioner is the recipient of "prestigious prizes" such as the ones discussed above. He provides no 
additional discussion of these prizes. Mr. , in a January 16, 2007 letter, discusses the 
petitioner's scholarship at CIM and states: 
* The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
While at CIM, [the petitioner] continued to be the recipient of numerous prestigious and 
highly competitive musical awards such as: CIM's Arthur Loesser Prize which 
recognizes extraordinary accomplishment as a solo pianist, and CIM's Rosa Lobe 
Memorial Award which recognizes extraordinary accomplishment by a collaborative 
pianist. She was [sic] also gained national and international recognition by winning 
First Prize at the Leschetizky Piano Competition and a prize at the Robert Casadesus 
International Piano Competition. 
[The petitioner] has distinguished herself by winning awards at several prestigious 
competitions such as: 
The Arthur Loesser Prize (which recognizes the highest level of artistic 
achievement in solo piano, awarded to the top 1.33% of applicants) 
Rosa Lobe Memorial Award (in recognition for the highest level of artistic 
achievement in collaborative piano, awarded to 5% of participants) 
Leschetizky Piano Competition (award to 2% of the participants) 
The Robert Casadesus International Piano Competition (awarded to 1% of the 
participants) 
Priscilla Morneault Piano Competition, (awarded to 2% of the participants). 
does not provide any information about the pool of competitors for any of the above 
competitions. Thus, it is not clear that the percentages recited by -compare the petitioner 
with the most experienced and renowned pianists. None of the other reference letters provide 
additional details regarding the petitioner's prizes and awards. 
In the WE, the director noted that scholarships are academic in nature and requested evidence as to the 
entrance requirements and standards for the competitions at which the petitioner won awards. As stated 
above, the petitioner did not respond. Thus, the director concluded that without evidence of the 
entrance requirements and standards, the petitioner could not establish that she meets this ~riterion.~ 
On appeal, counsel references 
 letter and asserts that the resti e of the competitions is 
demonstrated by their coverage in the media. As stated above, 
 letter does not explain 
who is eligible to compete for the prizes he discusses. 
 Thus, the percentages he provides are 
meaningless. For example, finishing in the top 1.33 or 5 percent of students at CIM says nothing about 
the petitioner's position in the field generally. Winning an award or prize in a competition limited to a 
3 
 The director, after discussing the deficiencies in the evidence, stated that the petitioner's "burden of proof 
to meet this criterion has been met." Given the director's full discussion, however, the absence of the word 
"not" in the sentence quoted appears to be a typographical error. Regardless, as explained in the text of this 
decision, we conclude that the petitioner has not submitted the necessary evidence to meet this criterion. 
Page 6 
local pool of candidates or one that excludes experienced members of the field is not indicative of 
national or international acclaim or one's placement in the field overall. 
Scholarships are limited to students at a particular school or, at most, students in general. As the most 
experienced and renowned members of the field do not compete for scholarships, they cannot be 
considered nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes indicative of acclaim in the field 
overall. 
The awards from CIM are also limited to students at that institute. Thus, they cannot serve as evidence 
of awards indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. As stated above, the 
Leschetizky Association's 14~~ New York Debut Competition is limited to pianists age 18 to 30 who 
are prepared to make their New York debut. Thus, while briefly covered in an unknown section of the 
New York ~imes? the most experienced and renowned pianists and even simply those who have already 
debuted in New York are excluded from this competition. Despite a request for such evidence by the 
director, the record lacks evidence of the requirements to enter the Priscilla Morneault Piano 
Competition. While this competition did receive limited media coverage, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this competition receives any recognition outside of Portland, such as coverage in a 
newspaper outside of Portland. The petitioner has also not established how the cash prize amounts 
compare with prestigious competitions that are not limited by age or experience. 
As stated above, the record does not establish how the petitioner finished at the William S. Boyd Piano 
Competition. While the petitioner did submit some evidence documenting the prestige of the 
Cleveland International Piano Competition, the petitioner only finished sixth at this competition. As 
stated above, a sixth place finish is not a prize or award. 
Finally, the record contains no evidence of any prizes or awards other than student scholarships 
awarded after 1994. Thus, even if we considered the petitioner's first place finish at the 1993 
Leschetizky Association's 14'~ New York Debut Competition to be a nationally recognized prize or 
award, this single award is not evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in 2007 when the 
petition was filed. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which classzJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner was submitting evidence of "recognition from international 
experts that the alien is a member of associations, which require outstanding achievements of their 
While major media, we cannot ignore that at least some sections of the New York Times also cover events 
with only local interest. Thus, any article in this paper must be considered on a case-by-case basis. 
Page 7 
members." Counsel then referenced the letters as evidence that "the petitioner is recognized by experts 
in the field and by her peers as an extraordinary artist." Counsel quotes the attestations regarding 
whom the petitioner has accompanied, festivals at which the petitioner has performed and general 
assertions of talent. None of the letters reference an association of which the petitioner is a member 
and the record includes no membership cards. 
The director's WE noted that this criterion requires evidence of membership in an association and 
evidence of the requirements for that membership. As stated above, the petitioner did not respond. 
Thus, the director reiterated the comments in the RFE and concluded that the petitioner had not met her 
burden with respect to this criterion. On appeal, counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this 
criterion and we concur with the director's reasoning and conclusion that the petitioner has not, in fact, 
established that she meets this criterion or even submitted evidence relating to this 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 classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted the above-mentioned articles in the New York Times, the unidentified 
newspaper and the Portland, Maine Evening Express. The petitioner also submitted an article from 
2000 in the Boston Globe reviewing a concert at the New England Conservatory of Daniel Pinkham's 
work. The three-column article includes a single sentence praising the petitioner's ability on the piano. 
Another concert review in the Boston Globe is also a three-column review that mentions the petitioner 
in a single sentence. It is not clear that the petitioner performed during the entire concert as other 
accompanists are mentioned. Rather, the petitioner accompanied a soprano singing "The Twilight 
Stood." The petitioner also submitted a 1993 concert review in New York Concert Review regarding 
the petitioner's solo performance at the Weill Recital Hall at Carnegie Hall. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a full page invitation to Pianofest. This invitation does not appear to be published in any 
media, major or otherwise. Finally, the record contains an "opinion" piece in an unidentified paper. 
The piece reviews a student recital and the three-column piece mentions the petitioner in only one 
paragraph. 
In the RFE, the director noted that the materials submitted were not primarily about the petitioner and 
noted that evidence to meet this criterion must include data confirming the publication's circulation. 
As stated above, the petitioner did not respond. As the petitioner did not respond, the director reiterated 
his concerns in the final decision. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's work as an accompanist does not diminish her ability 
and the reference to other musicians in the reviews does not diminish her acclaim. Counsel further 
asserts that there is no requirement as to the length of the discussion of the petitioner in the published 
materials. 
Page 8 
Counsel is not persuasive. As stated above, the petitioner's work as an accompanist does not preclude 
eligibility. An article in major media that focused on the petitioner, addressing her work as an 
accompanist, would certainly be more likely to meet this criterion. Moreover, as stated above, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iii) expressly requires published material "about the alien . . . 
relating to the alien's work." It cannot be logically asserted that the three-column articles that include a 
sentence or even a paragraph about the petitioner is published material about the petitioner. Moreover, 
the regulation does not require merely published material about the alien's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding professors or researchers pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of 
the Act. Rather, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the article be "about the 
alien." Thus, the published material cannot simply be about the petitioner's work, but must be about 
the alien although it cannot be unrelated to the alien's work. While the reviews praise the petitioner's 
piano ability, they cannot be considered to be primarily about her, relating to her work. Rather, they are 
primarily about the event at which she and many others played. 
Finally, not all of the evidence submitted complies with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Specifically, some of the articles are not dated and the petitioner did not identify the publication for one 
article and the opinion piece. 
Regarding the invitation and the 1993 article in New York Concert Review, we acknowledge that these 
materials focus on the petitioner. The invitation, however, bears no indicia of publication. The record 
also lacks evidence that New York Concert Review has a national circulation. Moreover, the article in 
that publication is dated 14 years before the petition was filed and, thus, cannot establish sustained 
acclaim as of the filing date in 2007. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speciJication for which classijication is sought. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's teaching experience serves to meet this criterion. In the 
director's RFE and final decision, the director concluded that while a teacher "judges" her students, the 
duties inherent to every teacher cannot serve to set the alien apart from others in the field such that she 
meets this criterion. Counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion on appeal and we 
concur with the director's analysis and conclusion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Overall talent in a field alone cannot serve to meet 
Page 9 
this criterion; the petitioner must submit evidence of specific contributions that are recognized in the 
field as having had a significant impact on the field. 
Initially, counsel referenced letters from 
 a timpanist with the San Francisco 
Symphony, and , principal oboist with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. In the RFE 
and final decision, the director concluded that solicited letters cannot serve to meet this criterion in 
the absence of unsolicited independent evidence. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that this criterion is difficult for a musician to meet. We do not contest 
that the regulatory criteria are designed to demonstrate eligibility for this exclusive classification and, 
thus, cannot be easil met by every individual able to make a living in her field. Counsel then 
references 
 letter. Counsel asserts that the petitioner's occupation as a musician rather 
than a scientist makes it difficult to obtain letters from individuals who have not heard her play. 
In addition, counsel acknowledges that references letters need to be corroborated by documentary 
evidence in the record and explain in specific terms why the authors believe the alien is eligible for 
the classification sought. Counsel then asserts that the letters submitted are specific and, in and of 
themselves, document the petitioner's reputation "well beyond" her immediate circle of personal and 
professional acquaintances. Counsel concludes that the director gave no weight to the reference 
letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
her reputation warrant careful consideration depending on the content of such letters. Ultimately, 
evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new 
materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. While we do not discount the value 
of reference letters in explaining the evidence, an individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Finally, the 
petitioner's work in the field of music rather than science does not relieve her of providing evidence 
that she is recognized in her field beyond her immediate circle of collaborators and teachers. 
We will now consider the letters in light of the principles expressed above. 
 who 
collaborated with the petitioner at the Pacific Music Festival, states: 
I would like to highlight one of [the petitioner's] performances, in -please insert date 
- at the Pacific Music Festival in Sapporo Japan where she was the first musician ever 
who devised a way to play on the piano the orchestral reduction of Robert Kraft's 
Timpani Concerto to achieving an unprecedented orchestral effect to a rave audience. 
That performance with her piano orchestral reduction is now used by other musicians 
worldwide as the new standard to interpret this musical piece. 
(Emphasis in original.) 
The phrase "please insert date" suggests that this letter was not originally authored by - 
but rather prepared for his signature. While did sign the letter, affirming its contents, the 
words do not appear to be his own. 
who played with the petitioner in 2005 at the Pacific Music Festival in Japan, states: 
In one of the concerts, [the petitioner] performed a very difficult timpani concerto 
with- a world renowned percussionist and the principal timpanist of 
[the] San Francisco Symphony Orchestra and she succeed[ed] in transferring in her 
piano playing many interesting colors of a full orchestra which was critical to making 
the performance a raving success. [The petitioner] had only had a week to learn the 
orchestra reduction score and she made her own musical additions from the orchestra 
score to the piano score to make the music sound like a full orchestra. That 
unprecedented performance has set up the standards on which the current 
performances of this timpani concert are judged now nationally and internationally. 
Such original contributions played a role in establishing [the petitioner's] artistic 
prominence and widespread acclaim. 
 either nor 
 identify specific independent musical groups who have adopted 
the petitioner's orchestral reduction score. 
 Moreover, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). The record does not contain letters from a sample of musicians worldwide 
who confirm using her orchestral reduction score, evidence that the petitioner published this score 
and that it has sold widely or requests from independent musicians requesting a copy of her score. 
One of [the petitioner's] artistic original contributions of major significance to the 
music field in addition to her performances is her own adaptation and implementation 
in her teaching of Eurhvthmics which is an avvroach to the education of music that 
A 1 
was devised by - which utilizes the expression of physical 
movement and musical rhythms to reinforce the concepts which affect the student's 
performance which she creatively combined with Harmonic Analysis. [The 
petitioner's] original approach to structural analysis, which affords the musicians to 
look into the special harmonies within a phrase or sections of musical pieces has 
impacted how music and harmonies are taught and it is now widely applied. 
Once again, - does not identify a single independent institution that utilizes the 
petitioner's methods. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner has published an 
article or book on these approaches, evidence that the petitioner is frequently invited to lecture to 
music teachers about these approaches, letters from independent music professors utilizing these 
approaches or requests for information about these approaches from independent music professors 
nationwide. 
Finally, 
 Senior Lecturer in Music at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
(MIT), asserts that due to the petitioner's "extraordinary musical qualities," her performances "are 
artistic contributions of major significance in the field of music. As stated above, however, mere 
talent in the field cannot serve to meet this criterion without evidence of the impact of the alien's 
work nationwide or worldwide. 
We do not question the sincerity and expertise of the petitioner's collaborators, teachers and 
colleagues at MIT where she teaches who support the petition. Their general assertions, however, 
that the petitioner is talented and has made original contributions are insufficient. While some of the 
petitioner's references focus on a specific contribution and affirm its influence, the record does not 
corroborate these claims. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted programs for numerous recitals and concerts as evidence to meet this criterion. 
In the RFE and final decision, the director concluded that this criterion applies to the visual arts, not the 
performing arts. Counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion on appeal. We concur 
with the director that this criterion applies to the visual arts. Counsel has not explained how the 
petitioner's performances are comparable, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4), to an exclusive artistic 
exhibition designed to showcase a visual artist's work. Thus, we concur with the director that the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At the outset, we note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the 
petitioner has played a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment. Playing 
in a critical role as an accompanist for a distinguished individual or for an event does not fit within the 
type of evidence required to meet this criterion. 
Initially, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion through her role for the Pacific Music 
Festival in Japan and every venue at which she has performed. Finally, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner meets this criterion through her work as a teacher. 
The director concluded that performances at the Pacific Music Festival, which is "educational," cannot 
serve to meet this criterion and that simply performing at a venue is not a leading or critical role for that 
venue. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has performed at more than "educational" events 
and that the petitioner was critical to the success of every event where she performed. 
An event is not an organization or establishment. The petitioner must establish her leading or critical 
role for an organization or establishment. We cannot conclude that every musician who performs at an 
event at a distinguished venue plays a leading or critical role for the organization or establishment that 
sponsors the event or owns the venue. 
The letter from 
 Secretariat General of the Pacific Music Festival Organizing 
Committee, asserts that the festival "has welcomed more than 59 international pianists from 14 
different countries; [the petitioner] was the only one who was invited back due to her extraordinary 
musical ability in understanding and interpreting the musical pieces in perfect harmony with the soloist 
or the ensemble." The programs in the record, however, reveal that another pianist, Timothy Bozarth, 
played piano at more than one festival. .Specifically, he is listed as a pianist in both 1995 and 1999. In 
addition,asserts that the festival was founded by and is one of the most 
prestigious international music festivals. The record does not include any promotional materials or 
media coverage of this festival. 
The record does not include consistent, persuasive evidence that the petitioner performed a leading or 
critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment. Thus, she has not established that she 
meets this criterion. Even if we were to conclude that that the Pacific Music Festival enjoys a 
distinguished national or international reputation and that the petitioner's role as a consistently invited 
pianist is critical for the festival's sponsor, the petitioner would only meet one criterion. For the 
reasons discussed above, she falls far short of meeting any of the other criteria. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
pianist to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a pianist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.