dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 3 0 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citize nship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Ap peals Office (AAO ) 
20 Massac husett s Ave .• N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE : 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act ; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Offic e (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 appli ed 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 l-290B instructions at 
http://w""w.uscis.gov/fot·ms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F .R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
~~~~~tralive Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO N 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director , 
Nebraska Service Center , on October 19, 2013, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(A) , as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a pianist and music instructor . The director determined that the petitioner 
had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation 
of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 , 
atis, 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 have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. I d.; 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). 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.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.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." !d. 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 we 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 we concluded) ." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter , we will review the evidence 
under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellenc e in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibilit y for this criterion. In the 
petitioner ' s brief submitted on appeal, she claims: 
[Her] long list of outstanding performances at the numerous musical events plus her 
remarkable music education contributions to the local communities in the United 
States ... should be deemed equivalent to prizes and awards in the field, which have 
obviously recognized her extraordinary achievements in her field as attested by the 
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). 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed 
in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
experts and educators in her field ... , despite the lack of formal official certificates 
titled "awards or prizes." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[ d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor." (emphasis added). The petitioner's submission of documentary evidence 
reflecting her participation in musical performances and musical events rather than her receipt of 
prizes or awards does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
There is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's participation resulted in any "prizes or 
awards." Furthermore, the record of proceeding contains no evidence of any prizes or awards as a 
music instructor. 
It is the petitioner's burden to establish that the evidence meets every element of this criterion. Not 
only must the petitioner demonstrate her receipt of prizes and awards, she must also demonstrate that 
those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor, which, by definition, means that they are recognized beyond the awarding entity. The 
petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence reflecting her receipt of prizes or awards, let 
alone nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[ d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in an association 
meets this criterion, 
a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential 
condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity 
in a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion 
as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a 
given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
On a12J2eal, the 12etitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her membership with the 
A review of 
the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted an August 8, 2012 email from Dr. 
Executive Director and CEO for to the petitioner thanking her for her 2012-
2013 membership with The petitioner also submitted a screenshot from that reflects 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
the benefits of membership such as peer connections, ongoing education, and resources. The 
screenshot does not reflect, however, the membership requirements for 
Similarly, regarding the petitioner submitted a July 30, 2012 email from 
Membership Chair of the to the petitioner welcoming her to 
chapter. The petitioner also submitted an October 2012 edition of the , a 
newsletter for the _ The newsletter provides announcements and events 
for the chapter, but it does not provide any information regarding membership requirements of the 
Although the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner reflects that she is a member of the 
and the the petitioner did not submit any documentary 
evidence reflecting that membership in the associations require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Submitting documentary evidence reflecting membership status is insufficient to meet the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) without documentary evidence demonstrating 
that membership in these associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets 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 director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner claims: 
[L ]ocal and national news media in the forms of various music programs, web and 
media announcements , notices, posters, pamphlets, etc. widely reported [her] noted 
performances in her field during numerous national and regional musical events in the 
United States. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 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." In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, 
the publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such 
as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media 
because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. Furthermore, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch evidence shall 
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petltwner submitted event programs and promotional material regarding her concert 
performances. In addition, the petitioner submitted photographs with handwritten captions of her 
performing and posing in front of musical instruments. Flyers , programs, photographs , 
advertisements, posters, and other promotional material are not "published material" consistent with 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), as they are not independent, 
journalistic coverage of the petitioner relating to her work. The material lists her as a performer; 
there is no discussion of the petitioner or her work. Moreover , the documents do not include the 
title, date, and author of the material as required pursuant to this regulatory criterion. Furthermore, 
the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that that material was 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Finally, the petitioner 
did not submit any published material regarding her work as a music instructor. 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p]ublished 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." In this case, the 
petitioner's documentary evidence does not reflect published material about her relating to her work 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner claims that "[ d]uring her coaching and teaching [of] the 
young music players, [she] has 
served as judge of their technical skills and performances." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." (emphasis added). Serving as a music 
instructor as part of one's job responsibility in a classroom setting does not constitute participation 
as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a 
judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Teaching in a classroom setting does not meet the elements of this criterion. The petitioner has not 
submitted any documentary evidence, for example , reflecting that she served on a panel judging a 
music competition. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner did not demonstrate that she served as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought with 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the alien's original scient?fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 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 contributions "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 in APWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility "by the fact that she has received numerous invitations to 
perform at various concerts and musical events." The petitioner lists various performances that are 
reflected on the submitted announcements of concert events and promotional material such as a dual 
piano recital with _ The petitioner 
did not establish, however, how her performances constitute original contributions of major 
significance in the field. The petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence demonstrating the 
impact or influence of her performances on the field, so as to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field consistent with the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Submitting evidence that the petitioner has performed at various concert venues is insufficient to 
demonstrate eligibility for this criterion without submitting supporting evidence that her 
performances have impacted the field in a significant way. 
The petitioner also claims eligibility for this criterion based on the submission of several 
recommendation letters and claims that the "[t]estimonies offered by prominent experts in the field 
have all substantiated [her] original contributions, outstanding ability, and the importance of her 
musical performance." The letters, however, do not identify the petitioner's original contributions 
and how they have been of major significance in the field. For example, Dr. stated that 
the petitioner "brings a unique and inspired approach to her performance and teaching." Dr. 
did not elaborate on the petitioner's approach or state that it is an original approach. Dr. also 
did not explain how the petitioner's approach has been of major significance in the field. Further, 
indicated that "[f]rom back in her student days (2008), [the petitioner] has been a 
dedicated worker, and went on to contribute a great deal to the community over the next several 
years." Mr. provided no further information describing what the petitioner has 
contributed and how it has affected the community. Furthermore, Dr. indicated 
that the petitioner performed "at as part of the '' Although the 
petitioner's performance may be considered original, Dr. did not indicate how the 
petitioner's performance at the college has been of major significance to the field as a whole. 
Similarly, Reverend stated that the petitioner "has brought recital performances to 
to expand the knowledge of music to others in the congregation 
and has adjusted her student lessons in order to play at the funerals of members." Reverend 
only described the petitioner's influence on the rather than the 
impact or influence of the petitioner's work on the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The letters highly praise the petitioner for her musical talents and abilities. For instance, 
stated that "(s]ince [the petitioner] has great interpersonal, analytical, and communication 
skills as a natural collaborator, she distinguishes herself to be a competent accompanist and the 
quintessential chamber musician"; stated that the petitioner "has all the personal 
attributes essential for ensemble playing: patience, flexibility, the ability to listen, sensitivity, and 
refinement"; _ offered praise for the petitioner's "skills as a pianist and for her strong 
instincts as a collaborative artist working with a wide range of other music students"; and 
stated that the petitioner's "abilities as an ensemble player are far beyond most musicians I 
have encountered." None of the letters, however, indicated how the petitioner's skills are original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of 
major significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the 
petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original 
way. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not 
designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. That issue would properly fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment labor certification process. 
See Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Assoc. 
Comm 'r 1998). 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered. 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. 
!d. The submission of reference letters 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 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the 
references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of a musician who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Cf 
Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, *8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from 
professionals in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
The petitioner has submitted insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that her work is of 
major significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original 
contributions, it also requires those contributions to be of major significance. Vague, solicited letters 
that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already 
influenced the field is insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates , Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). In 
2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics 
professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, the letters considered above 
primarily contain bare assetiions of the petitioner's status in the field without providing specific 
examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. 
Without supporting evidence, the petitioner has not met her burden of establishing her present 
contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this 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 did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner claims: 
Different from researchers and scientists who[ se] achievements are usually measured 
by the books or articles they have authored, as a noted musician and instructor, [her] 
publications are her outstanding performances and effective instruction in numerous 
regional, national and even international musical events .... 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." The petitioner did not submit any evidence reflecting that she has authored scholarly 
articles in the field of piano playing or music instruction in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. The petitioner's performances and instruction are not the same as authorship 
of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media consistent with 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. Based on a 
review of the record of proceeding, we must withdraw the favorable findings of the director for the 
artistic display criterion. 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 performer. Not every performance is an artistic exhibition designed to showcase the 
performer's art. Considering a performance under this criterion would effectively collapse the 
criterion at the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). See Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *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)). The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The interpretation that 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has 
been upheld by a federal district court. !d. at * 1, * 7. As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has 
not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has 
not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Therefore, the director's decision finding that the petition has met the 
artistic display criterion is withdrawn. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in 
which the alien contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. 
On appeal, the petitioner refers generally to the recommendation letters discussed under the original 
contributions criterion. Although the letters briefly highlight some of the petitioner's performances , 
they do not provide specific information establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role. For instance, Mr. indicated that the petitioner "participated in 
that was presented by three members of piano 
faculty." Mr. did not indicate the petitioner's specific role and how it was considered to be 
leading or critical. Mr. did not, for example, compare the roles to the other participants, so as 
to demonstrate that the petitioner's role was leading or critical. 
Moreover, Mr. stated that the petitioner "has been an invaluable part of the 
community as an accompanist and coach" and has "been a central part of the opera and musical 
theatre performances here at ' Again, Mr. did not provide any further details 
describing how the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role at There is no evidence 
that distinguishes the petitioner from the other musicians, coaches, or instructors, so as to reflect that 
the petitioner 's role is leading or critical. 
Furthermore, Dr. indicated that the petitioner "is a valuable asset to the 
_ piano department." Although Dr. stated that the petitioner's "energy and 
enthusiasm have helped our piano grow and flourish," Dr. did not explain how the petitioner 
helped grow the piano department. Besides indicating that the petitioner is an active performer, Dr. 
did not elaborate on the petitioner's roles or responsibilities and how they have significantly 
contributed to the piano department that would be reflective of a leading or critical role. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page II 
The letters provide insufficient information to establish that the petitioner has performed in a leading 
or critical role consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As 
discussed above, vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not 
explain how the petitioner's roles were leading or critical is not persuasive evidence and simply 
repeating the statutory language does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava , 724 F. Supp. at 1108, a.ffd, 905 F. 2d at 41; see also Avyr Associates , Inc. v. Meissner, 
No. 95 CIV 10729, *5. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires that the 
organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the petitioner claims 
that "[a]ll these institutions/organizations enjoy a distinguished reputation both nationally and 
internationally." The petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to support her assertions. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden ofproofin these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter a/Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972)). 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that 
the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that she meets every element 
of this criterion. Without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation , the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
Even if the petitioner had 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[ir] 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.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); 
Soltane v. DOJ, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir.l989) . 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)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 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) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USC IS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).