dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

identifying data deleted to 
psevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. $ 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. ,4ny 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 musit be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or R4otion, 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
V 
heny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based iimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The 
AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen. The 
motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed, and the petition will remain 
denied. The AAO will also enter a separate administrative finding of willful material 
misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director and the AAO determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
On motion, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). However, as shall be discussed, the evidence of record is simply not credible because 
of the petitioner's submission of demonstrably false evidence, including a letter with a false 
signature, falsified webpage materials, and three separate letters signed by the petitioner in which he 
falsely claims to have received a "second prize at 2nd International Piano Competition, Tbilisi Georgia 
200 1 ." 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only 
Page 3 
to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three ofthe following ten criteria. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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 ii~ternational experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's 0rigin.d scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major sign:ificance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
11. Derogatory findings pertaining to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
Page 4 
On February 17, 201 0, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office 
issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he altered documents 
submitted in support of the petition and falsely claimed a prize that he did not receive. The notice 
specifically observed that the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying under penalty of 
that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." As the 
derogatory findings relate to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), they are material to 
this proceeding. The AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
On appeal, you submitted a November 6, 2007 letter of support from - - of Tel Aviv University. - letter states that he served on the 
jury of the "Fifth 'Konzerteum' Inteirnational Piano Competition in Markopulon, Greece, in 
December 1999" and that you received fourth rize in "the adult category (till 32 years of 
age)." The AAO contacted An March 10, 2009 and his e-mail response 
to the AAO's inquiry stated that the signature on the preceding letter was not his. You also 
submitted a profile of allegedly printed from his internet homepage. 
The version of-, homepage that you submitted states: "Served on the 
juries of numerous international competitions: . . . the Konzerteum in Greece (1999, 2001, 
and 2002) jury president) . . . ." On March 10, 2009, this office accessed - 
homepage at - (copy attached to this notice and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding). Paragraph 8 from his actual homepage states: 
"Served on the juries of numerous international competitions: . . . the Konzerteurn in Greece 
(2000, 2001, and 2002 jury president) . . . ." Thus, the altered version you submitted 
redaced the vear "2000" with "1 999"' and included a parenthetical error not contained in the 
In an August 4, 2007 letter responding; to the director's request for evidence, you state that you 
won "second prize at 2nd International Piano Competition, Tbilisi Georgia 2001 ." You continue 
to make this claim on appeal and again on motion. On March 10,2009, this office accessed the 
results for this competition at http://~ww.alink-ar~ch.ora/results2001 .htm (copy attached 
to this notice and incorporated into the record of proceeding).' According to the 2001 
"Competition Results" from the Alink-Argerich Foundation, "Murad Adigezalzade" won 
second place at the 2nd International Piano Competition in Tbilisi, Georgia in October 2001. 
Moreover, the 2004 contestant biographies section of the "International piano-e-competition" 
of MinneapolisISt. Paul, Mimes~ota website, accessed on January 27, 2010 at 
http://www.piano-e-competition.com~contestantbios04/ muradadigezalzade.htm (copy 
attached to this notice and incorporated into the record of proceeding), confirms that Murad 
Adigezalzade won the 2nd Prize at the "2001 I1 International Piano Competition, Georgia." 
By submitting altered documents and by falsely claiming a prize that you did not receive, it 
appears you have sought to obtain a .visa by . . . willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
' The Alink-Argerich Foundation is an "Independent Worldwide Information and Service Centre for 
Musicians and Competitions." See http://vww.alink-argerich.org/, accessed on January 27, 2010, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 5 
With regard to the above findings, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Id. at 591. Because you have submitted altered documentation and falsely 
claimed another pianist's prize as your own, we cannot accord any of your other claims any 
weight. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a March 3, 2010 letter from counsel, a February 25, 2010 
notarized letter from , and a March 3, 2010 affidavit from the petitioner. The 
petitioner's response does not contest the AAO's findings that the signature on the November 6, 
2007 letter of support from was not authentic, that the petitioner's appellate 
submission included a falsi homepage, and that the record 
includes three separate letters signed by the petitioner in which he falsely claims to have received a 
"second prize at 2nd International Piano Competition, Tbilisi Georgia 2001 ." 
In the March 3, 2010 letter, counsel argues that the required elements are not present to find the 
petitioner culpable of committing fraud and misrepresenting a material fact. Counsel cites to 
Sergueeva v. Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 112"~ Cir. 2009), in which the court stated: 
To constitute a fraud, an alien must have made a false representation of a material fact, with 
knowledge of its falsity and with an intent to deceive a government official, and the 
misrepresentation must have been believed and acted upon by the official. Matter of GG-, 7 
I&N Dec. 16 1, 164 (B.I.A. 1956). PL willful misrepresentation, however, only requires that 
the alien knowingly make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 
I&N Dec. 288,289-90 (B.I.A. 1975). 
A. False Signature 
With regard to the AAO's finding that the signature on the November 6, 2007 letter from- 
was not his, counsel states: 
the Sex-vice because the content of the letter was true and there was no intent to deceive the 
Service. . . . and [the petitioner] agreed thatwould 
serve as reference for [the petitioner]. To that extent, 
of reference and e-mailed it to [the petitioner]. Further, directed [the 
petitioner] to sign the letter, if it was necessary. 
The February 25,2010 notarized letter from-o the petitioner states: "I confirm 
hereby in a telephone conversation between us I agreed that, if necessary, you sign for me the e-mail 
letter I sent you." Thus, the petitioner altered evidence submitted in support of his appeal with the - - - - 
permission df - The petitioner does not provide any contem oraneous evidence 
of their exchanges, such as the e-mail draft of the letter. Nor does or the 
petitioner explain why they believed that it would be appropriate to provide USCIS with a document 
containing a false signature rather than one with - original, valid signature. 
Like a delayed birth certificate, the explanation regarding the false signature, provided years after the 
transaction, raises serious questions regarding the truth of the facts asserted. CJ: Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N 
Dec. 1029, 1033 (BIA 1997); Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991) (discussing the evidentiary weight 
accorded to delayed birth certificates in immigrant visa proceedings). 
While all of the required elements for finding the petitioner culpable of committing fraud or 
misrepresenting a material fact as set forth in Sergueeva v. Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 (2nd Cir. 
2009) are not present with respect to the false signature on this letter, the false version of Professor 
Krasovsky's signature on the November 6, 2007 letter seriously compromises the credibility of the 
petitioner and the authenticity of the remaining documentation submitted in support of the petition. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Moreover, we note that a petitioner cannot simply alter 
documents submitted in support of his petition to facilitate its approval. To hold otherwise would 
make a farce of the immigration systern and the evidentiary requirements set up by statute and 
regulation. 
B. Falsified Webpage 
With regard to the AAO's finding that thlat the petitioner's appellate submission included a falsified - 
version of homepage, coinsel states: - 
-1 was a judge on the Fifth Konzerteum International Piano Competition 
in Greece on [sic] December 1999. According to [~ebruary 25,20101 
letter, he judged the Konzerteum in Greece in 1999 however, he failed to list the accolade on 
his website. Therefore, the fact that judged the Konzerteum is the truth 
and not a misrepresentation. 
The February 25, 2010 letter from states: "I served on the jury of the 
Konzerteum Piano Competition in Greece in December, 1999. The years appearing on my Web site 
relate to the times I served as president of the jury, whereas in 1999, I was a member." The letters 
from counsel and do not dispute the fact that the petitioner's appellate 
submission included a falsified version of homepage in which the years of his 
jury service were deliberately altered to support the petitioner's appeal. As indicated in the February 
25,2010 letter from, the true and official version of his website did not indicate 
that that he served on the jury of the Fifth Konzerteum International Piano Competition in Greece in 
December 1999. Rather, only his years as the president of the jury were listed on his homepage 
("2000, 2001, and 2002 jury president"). While all of the required elements for finding the 
petitioner culpable of committing fraud or misrepresenting a material fact as set forth in Sergueeva v. 
Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 ~2"~ Cir. 2009) are not present in with respect to the falsified webpage, 
the alteration of homepage to include the year 1999 seriously compromises the 
credibility of the petitioner and the authenticity of the remaining documentation submitted in support of 
the petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Once again, we note that a petitioner cannot 
simply alter documents submitted in support of his petition to facilitate its approval. 
 To hold 
otherwise would make a farce of the immigration system and the evidentiary requirements set up by 
statute and regulation. 
C. Repeated False Claims of a Second Place Prize 
In addressing the AAO's finding that that the record includes three separate letters signed by the 
petitioner in which he falsely claimed to receive "second prize at 2" International Piano Competition, 
Tbilisi Georgia 2001 ," counsel states: 
The Service should not fmd [the petitioner] to have misrepresented a material fact in his petition 
for immigrant status as an alien of extraordinary ability because he did not knowingly 
misrepresent any statements. 
 [The petitioner] is not fluent in the English language. 
Consequently, [the petitioner] relied on, a notario who practices 
immigration law without a license or other authorization, to submit his petition, appeals and 
other documents in support of his petition. - betrayed [the petitioner's] trust, 
and lied to the Service, by claiming that [the petitioner] won second place in the 2" annual 
International Piano Competition in Tbilisi, Georgia. [The petitioner] was unaware of the lie and 
he never consented to its inclusion in the petition or any other document. The Service should 
not attribute misrepresentation to [the petitioner] because [the petitioner] 
did not know the lie was promulgated. 
The petitioner submitted information obtained online at www.~elanyusa.con~ for "IMACOM IN 
U.S.A. CORP Imigration [sic], Finance, Fax Consulting Service" listing address as 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
complaint he filed against 
 with the New York State Office of the Attorney General 
dated March 23,2010. 
In his March 3, 2010 affidavit, the petitioner states that he participated in the 2nd annual 
International Piano Competition in Georgia, but confirms he did not win. He further states: 
to assist me in filing a petition for 
immigrant status as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
I signed the petition trusting that the petition and supporting statements and the information 
contained therein was true and correct. I am not fluent in English language so I could not 
confirm the facts contained in the petition. 
As the numerous letters of recommendation written on my behalf attest, I am an ethical 
person without any personal blemish. I would have never participated in the dissemination 
of any lie, specially related to my professional work. Such actions would be particularly 
insulting to those that have deposited their trust in me. 
We cannot ignore. however. that the ~etitioner's March 1 1. 2009 motion includes a recommendation 
" I 
letter from , Boston, stating: "[The 
petitioner] is a major prize laureate of several important competitions such as Second international 
Competition of Republic of Georgia . . . ." [Emphasis added.] Clearly, : is under 
the false impression that the petitioner won a prize at the 2nd International Piano Competition in 
Georgia. The preceding statement in - letter undermines the petitioner's 
assertion that he has not participated in the dissemination of misinformation relating to the falsely 
claimed prize. - is the petitioner's personal acquaintancee2 There is no reason to 
believe that he mistakenly asserted the petitioner won a prize in the 2nd annual International Piano 
Competition in Georgia due to the misrepresentations of a notario. On the contrary, - 
would know of the petitioner's prior accomplishments either because of the petitioner's 
renown or because the etitioner rovided with the information, whether true or 
false. In short, P; mention of the prize in his letter undermines the petitioner's 
credibility and his assertions of victimization. The letter disproves counsel's assertion that the 
petitioner "was unaware of the lie and he never consented to its inclusion in the petition or any other 
document." [Emphasis added.] 
Both counsel and the petitioner assert that the petitioner is not fluent in the English language and did 
not understand what he signed. While may have helped the petitioner prepare the 
documentation submitted in support of the petition, we cannot ignore that the petitioner's address 
and signature (rather than those of than appear on the August 4,2007, November 15, 
2007, and March 9, 2009 letters in which the petitioner claimed to have won the second prize at 2nd 
International Piano Competition in Tbilisi, Georgia in 2001. As previously stated, a willful 
misrepresentation only requires that the alien knowingly make a material misstatement to a 
government official for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. 
Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 289-90. In this case, the record includes three separate 
letters signed by the petitioner in which he falsely claimed to receive "second prize at 2nd 
International Piano Com etition, Tbilisi Georgia 2001 ." As previously discussed, he also provided a 
letter from which contains misrepresentations that could only have come from the 
petitioner. 
Moreover, we cannot ignore that the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying under 
penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
Only in response to the AAO's February 17, 2010 notice has the petitioner acknowledged that the 
submitted documentation contained material misrepresentations regarding his winning second prize 
* speaks in glowing terms of the petitioner's performance at a Summer 2008 concert in 
New Paltz, and the petitioner provides a photograph of himself with titled 'm - with Exhibit 2-12. 
Page 9 
at 2nd International Piano Competition in Tbilisi, Georgia. An alien's timely and voluntary retraction 
of his false statement may serve to excuse the misrepresentation, but the retraction may not simply 
be in response to the actual or imminent exposure of his falsehood. See Rahman v. Mukasey, 272 
Fed. Appx. 35, 39 (2nd Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412, 414 
(BIA 1973); Matter of Ngan, 10 I&N Dec. 725,727 (BIA 1964); Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 1 18, 1 19 
(BIA 1960)). Until USCIS confronted the petitioner with the prize misrepresentation and altered 
documents, it appears that he would have been content to receive an approval of the petition based 
on the misrepresentations. 
Despite counsel's assertion that the petitioner "did not knowingly misrepresent any statements," the 
petitioner has failed to establish that he had no knowledge of the falsely claimed prize. We once 
more note that the letter submitted on motion from states that the petitioner "is a 
major prize laureate of several important competitions such as Second international Competition of 
~e~ublic of Georgia . . . ." ~urther. as previously stated, petitioner's address and signatire (rather 
than those of than appear on the August 4,2007, November 15,2007, and March 9, 
2009 letters in which the petitioner claimed to have won the second prize at 2nd International Piano 
Competition in Tbilisi, Georgia. Moreover, the petitioner signed the Form 1-140 on August 8, 2006 
under penalty of perjury. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 102.2(a)(2) provides that "[bly signing the 
application or petition, the applicant or petitioner.. .certifies under penalty of perjury that the 
application or petition, and all evidence submitted with, either at the time ofJiIing or thereafter, is 
true and correct." (Emphasis added). The actual signature portion of the Form 1-140 at part 8 
requires the petitioner to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under 
the laws of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all 
true and correct." On that basis alone, the petitioner must be held responsible for any material 
misrepresentations contained within the record of proceeding. 
If the petitioner was unaware of the documents and information submitted in support of his own 
petition, then this failure to apprise himself constitutes deliberate avoidance and does not absolve 
him of responsibility for the content of his etition or the materials submitted in support. See Hanna P v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. Appx. 478, 480 (6 Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (an applicant who signed his 
application for adjustment of status but who disavowed knowledge of the actual contents of the 
application because a friend filled out the application on his behalf was still charged with knowledge 
of the application's contents). The law generally does not recognize deliberate avoidance as a 
defense to misrepresentation. See Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1301 (1 1' Cir. 2005); 
United States v. Puente, 982 F.2d 156, 159 (5th Cir. 1993). To find otherwise would have serious 
negative consequences for USCIS and the administration of the nation's immigration laws. While 
potentially ineligible aliens might benefit from approval of an invalid petition or application in cases 
where USCIS fails to identify fraud or material misrepresentations, once USCIS does identify the 
fraud or material misrepresentations, these same aliens would seek to avoid the negative 
consequences of the fraud, including denial of the petition or application, a finding of inadmissibility 
under section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act, or even criminal prosecution. 
In addition, the Department of Justice and USCIS frequently prosecute employment-based fraud based 
on a petitioner's forged signature on the employment-based petition. We note prior examples where 
attorneys have been convicted of various charges, including money laundering and immigration fraud, 
after signing immigration forms for which the alien or employer had no knowledge. United States v. 
O'Connor, 158 F.Supp.2d 697, 710 (E.D. Va. 2001); United States v Kooritzky, = 
(E.D. Va. December 11, 2002). In contrast to those cases, the petitioner does not 
contest that he signed the Form 1-140, and his initial contact with , for instance, 
indicates that he was an active participant in the preparation of hs supporting documentation. 
As immigration officers USCIS Citizenship and Immigration Appeals Officers and Immigration 
Services Officers possess the full scope of authority accorded to officers by the relevant statutes, 
regulations, and the Secretary of Homeland Security's delegation of authority. See sections 
10 1 (a)(18), 103(a), and 287(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.1 (b), 287.5(a); DHS Delegation Number 
01 50.1 (effective March 1,2003). 
With regard to immigration fraud or material misrepresentation, the Act provides immigration 
officers with the authority to administer oaths, consider evidence, and fwther provides that any 
person who knowingly or willfully gives false evidence or swears to any false statement shall be 
guilty of perjury. Section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1357(b). Additionally, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has delegated to USCIS the authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal 
violations of the immigration laws, including application fraud, make recommendations for 
prosecution, and take other "appropriate action." DHS Delegation Number 0 150.1 at para. (2)(I). 
In the course of performing their duties under the immigration laws and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), immigration officers are charged with reviewing evidence and making factual 
determinations or "findings" related to the adjudication of immigration benefits. Under section 557 
of the APA, immigration officers are obligated to ensure that all decisions are a part of the 
administrative record and that the decisions include "a statement of . . . findings and conclusions, 
and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the 
record . . . ." 5 U.S.C. $ 557(c)(3). 
As an issue of fact that is material to an alien's eligibility for the requested immigration benefit or 
that alien's subsequent admissibility to the United States, the administrative findings in an 
immigration proceeding must include specific findings of fraud or material misrepresentation. 
Within the adjudication of the visa petition, a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation will 
undermine the probative value of the evidence and lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Outside of the basic adjudication of visa eligibility, there are many critical functions of the 
Department of Homeland Security that hinge on a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation. 
For example, the Act provides that an alien is inadmissible to the United States if that alien seeks to 
procure, has sought to procure, or has procured a visa, admission, or other immigration benefits by 
fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact. Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 82. 
Additionally, the regulations state that the willful failure to provide full and truthful information 
requested by USCIS constitutes a failure to maintain nonimmigrant status. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.l(f). For 
these provisions to be effective, USCIS is required to enter a factual finding of fraud or material 
misrepresentation into the administrative re~ord.~ 
With regard to the current proceeding, section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
After an investigation of the facts in each case . . . the [Secretary of Homeland Security] 
shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien . . . in 
behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified in section 201(b) or is 
eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 203, approve the petition . . . . 
Pursuant to section 204(b) of the Act, USCIS has the authority to issue a determination regarding 
whether the facts stated in a petition filed pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act are true. In the 
present matter, we find that the petitioner submitted three different letters on three separate 
occasions falsely claiming a prize that he did not receive, a finding that the petitioner does not 
challenge in his response to the AAO's February 17,201 0 notice. 
Even if the petitioner had established that was responsible for the material 
misrepresentation regarding the second prize at 2"' International Piano Competition in Tbilisi and that 
the petitioner was somehow unaware of this misrepresentation, this fact would not relieve the 
petitioner from the obligation of ensuring that all of the representations and evidence were true and 
correct. See Hanna v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. Appx. at 480; Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d at 1301; 
United States v. Puente, 982 F.2d at 159. As previously noted, the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, 
thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are 
all true and correct." See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1357(b); see also 28 U.S.C. 5 1746 
and 18 U.S.C. 5 1621. 
In this case, with regard to the falsely claimed prize, we find that there is sufficient evidence in the 
form of three signed letters to establish that the petitioner knowingly misrepresented a material fact 
in support of his petition for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner falsely 
claimed the prize in signed letters submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, on 
appeal, and again on motion. Moreover, the falsely claimed prize is mentioned in the letter 
submitted on motion from. Finally, the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, 
thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are 
all true and correct." Given the preceding facts, we find it implausible for counsel to argue that the 
petitioner "did not misrepresent any facts concerning . . . the 2nd International Piano Competition, 
Tbilisi, Georgia." 
Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
3 It is important to note that while it may present the opportunity to enter an administrative finding of fraud, 
the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien inadmissible. See Matter of 0, 
8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead, the alien may be found inadmissible at a later date when he or she 
subsequently applies for admission into the United States or applies for adjustment of status to permanent 
resident status. See sections 212(a) and 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1182(a) and 1255(a). 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfblly misrepresenting a 
material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other 
documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is 
inadmissible. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which 
"tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have 
resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of 4 and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 
(BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and falsely claiming a prize that he did not receive, the petitioner has 
sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material 
fact. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, 
fully and persuasively, our finding that he falsely claimed receipt of a second prize at 2" International 
Piano Competition in Tbilisi, we affirm our finding of willful material misrepresentation. This 
finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where 
admissibility is an issue. 
111. Analysis of the arguments and evidence submitted on motion 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner 
and the remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Moreover, the petitioner's 
statement in his March 3, 2010 affidavit that he "could not confirm the facts contained in the petition" 
provides a sound basis for upholding the director's denial of the petition, affming the AAO's decision 
dismissing his appeal, and dismissing the instant motion. Nevertheless, we will address the arguments 
and evidence submitted in support of the petitioner's motion to reopen below. 
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. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary ~riterion.~ With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
4 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at "6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5@)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at "3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on August 16, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a pianist. The petitioner has submitted evidence on motion pertaining to the following 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner's August 4, 2007 letter states that he "was the recipient of President's 
scholarship." In support of his statement, the petitioner submitted a 2001 certificate stating: 
"[The petitioner] is an Exhibitioner of the President of Georgia." The record does not 
include information regarding the significance of the "President's scholarship" or being an 
"Exhibitioner of the President." There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's certificate 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his field of 
endeavor. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a March 1, 2009 letter from , van0 
Sarajishvili Tbilisi State Conservatoire, stating: 
The Directorate of the Vano Sarajishvili Tbilisi State Conservatoire is pleased to inform you 
that during the academic year of 2000-200 1 the Conservatoire was attended by a total of 52 1 
students. 
We are herebv  leased to inform vou. that in 2001 as a result of a rather strict selection 
awarded to only 2 musician 
performers. One of the grantees was [the petitioner] a young musician-performer . . . and the 
intern of the same Conservatoire. 
According to the preceding information from - the petitioner received this 
stipend as a "student" while attending the Vano Sarajishvili Tbilisi State Conservatoire. The 
petitioner's motion also includes "General Rules and Regulations" concerning the "President's 
Stipend and Grant designated for children and youth who demonstrate special talents in art, science, 
medicine, inventions, as well as in other spheres." Section 11, "President's Stipend," of the "General 
Rules and Regulations" states that "[tlhe award of stipend of Georgian President to gifted children 
and youth is intended for growth of their intellectual and/or performing potential." While this 
stipend is administered by the Ministry of Georgian Culture, Monument Presentation and Sports, we 
cannot conclude that a stipend intended to foster "performing potential" in "children and youth" 
equates to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and 
it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's student stipend is recognized beyond the presenting 
body and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field of music. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which .require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfl this criterion, the AA07s appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted a February 12, 2007 letter from the Chairman of the Georgian 
Composers' Union stating that the petitioner was a member of the organization from 1999 to 
2006. The record, however, does not include evidence (such as membership bylaws or 
official admission requirements) showing that this organization requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a document entitled "Regulations of the Georgia's Composers' 
Creative Union." Part 3 of this document, "Membership of the Union," states: 
3.1. A professional composer or musician-performer can become the member of the Union, if 
hisher intellectual-creative work solely results in creation of the piece of art, or 
establishment of its performing interpretation. In addition the person has to adopt the 
Regulations of the Union, ensuring an important contribution to the development of the 
Georgian culture and have a minimum 3 years of professional work experience. 
3.2. The Union is composed of individual and honorable members. 
3.3. The acceptance of individual members to the Union is guided by provisions of the 
admission commissions, approved by the management of the Union. 
3.4. Applications on the memberships of the Union is discussed by the admission 
commission, decisions on admissions are made by voting from the management of the 
Union. 
The preceding guidelines indicate that an individual may become a member through creating a piece of 
art and having a minimum of three years of professional work experience. We cannot conclude that the 
preceding requirements equate to "outstanding achievements" in music or composition. Moreover, 
there is no evidence indicating that the "management of the Union" is comprised of recognized national 
or international experts. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the Georgian Composers' 
Union requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in his field or an allied one. 
Society of New York, stating that the petitioner has been a member of the society since January 
2007. The petitioner became a member of this society subsequent to the petition's August 16, 2006 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$6 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence (such 
as membership rules or bylaws) showing that this local society requires outstanding achievements of 
its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an 
allied one. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classlJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted a 1999 article in Musika entitled "Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. . ." 
The English language translation of this article was incomplete. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. Without a full English language translation 
of the article, it cannot be determined that the article was about the petitioner. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien" 
relating to his work in the field. An article that only mentions the petitioner's name in passing 
does not meet this requirement. The petitioner also submitted an English language translation 
for a March 3 1, 1988 article in Sakhalkho Ganatleba, but a copy of the original article was not 
submitted. There is no indication that the English language translation of the article was 
complete as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Nevertheless, according to 
the English language translation submitted by the petitioner, the article was about a "Music 
Week of Children and Youth" held by his school rather than being primarily about him. The 
petitioner also submitted an article about him in Dro entitled "Discovery. . ." The date of this 
article was not provided as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Further, 
there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that Musika, Sakhalkho Ganatleba, 
and Dro qualify as professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a March 2,2009 letter from the Chief Editor or Dro stating that the 
"newspaper was issued in years 1989-2008" and that it "was spread either in the capital, throughout 
the whole country and outside it." The self-serving assertion from the Chief Editor of Dro regarding 
the newspaper's distribution is not sufficient to demonstrate the publication qualifies as a form of 
major media. Aside from the date of the article in Dro not being provided, the record lacks evidence 
(such as objective circulation information from an independent source) showing the distribution of the 
preceding publication relative to other national media to demonstrate that the submitted article was 
published in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in thefleld. 
On motion, the petitioner submits letters of recommendation praising his talent as a pianist and 
teacher. We cite representative examples here. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily 
indicative of artistic contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the 
Page 17 
petitioner has made original artistic contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his 
field. 
I have worked with [the petitioner] on several occasions and can speak of his professional 
accomplishments in the highest terms. With tremendous success, he played in my piano 
masterclasses and was selected as one of the best participant to perform Chopin's Polonaise 
in A-flat Major, Op. 53, in the final piano gala concert at Klavierhaus in New York City. As 
a result, I have recommended him to apply as a participant to the International Festival- 
Institute at Round Top, Texas, where I serve as an artist-faculty. I have plans to include [the 
petitioner] in some future artisticieducational endeavors of my AmerKlavier project, as it is 
my sincere belief that he would be a great addition to our program. [The petitioner] is an 
exceptional musician of the highest caliber and will be a valuable asset to the musical 
community of our country. 
[The petitioner] is regarded as one of the best musicians of his generation. He is simply 
brilliant. There is no person in the audience who will leave his concert without having said 
that it was one of the most unforgettable experiences of their life. His playing uniquely 
embraces subtle sophistication and wild excitement - win-win combination. In Summer 2008 
his performance of Liszt's Mephisto Waltz at Nadia and Max Shepard Hall at SUNY New 
Paltz during Piano Summer Institute brought him a major ovation and admiration of the 
students and faculty. Soon after this memorable performance [the petitioner] was invited to 
take part in a gala concert in prestigious Steinway Hall in New York City, where he 
brilliantly performed two Etude-tableaus by Sergei Rachmaninoff following long ovation 
from the audience. 
, New York Conservatory of Music, states that he has 
worked with the petitioner "since September 2007." further states: 
[The petitioner's] professional input proved highly productive and profitable to our school 
over the past years. His work ethic and sense of responsibility are impressive and that has 
ultimately led to his outstanding success in career. It took only a few years for [the petitioner] 
to establish a class that stands out not only within The New York Conservatory of Music but 
also everywhere else. His students participate in annual recitals and master classes. His 
student performances at prestigious venues such as The Steinway Hall of New York evoke 
shear delight. Request for admission into his classes are continuously increasing. 
[The petitioner] is extraordinarily productive, his repertoire includes technically virtuosi 
masterpieces. His approach to the performance of these pieces were vividly demonstrated 
during master classes he gave at The New York Conservatory of Music. [The petitioner] has 
received a lot of praise from experts in his field. He is preparing a solo concert organized by 
The New York Conservatory of Music at Steinway Hall in September 2009. 
activities of the petitioner that post-date the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider subsequent developments in 
the petitioner's career in this proceeding. 
The letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner discuss his talent as a pianist, musical 
performances, and teaching activities, but they do not specifjr exactly what the petitioner's original 
contributions in music have been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions 
were of major significance in his 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. While the 
petitioner has earned the admiration of those offering letters of support, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his work equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other pianists 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his 
work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone 
of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Commr. 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. Thus, the content of the 
experts' 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 of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a pianist who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
On motion, the petitioner submits event programs, concert flyers, and photographs from various 
music performances. For example, the petitioner submits a flyer for a "class concert" given by his 
students at the Gezi-Georgian Cultural Center on January 19, 2008. The petitioner also submits an 
event program reflecting his participation as a "student" in the "PianoSummer 2008 Student Recital7' 
on July 24, 2008. The preceding performances post-date the filing of the petition. As previously 
discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO is not required to consider 
subsequent developments in the petitioner's career in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it is for visual artists (such as sculptors and 
painters) rather than for pianists such as the petitioner. In the performing arts, national or 
international acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but rather 
by attracting a substantial national or international audience. For this reason, the regulations 
establish separate criteria, especially for those whose work is in the performing arts. The petitioner's 
musical performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x) and will be addressed there. Accordingly, we reaffirm our 
appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the QNYSM stating that he has worked there as a 
piano teacher since June 2007. As discussed, the petitioner's employment with the QNYSM 
post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's role for the QNYSM in this 
proceeding. 
of Music and Culture, stating: 
This is given to a young Georgian pianist [the petitioner] to certify that in 2001-2006 
he was a soloist of the Tbilisi Centre of Music and Culture. He was delivering - 
concerts together with the Tbilisi symphony orchestra under leadership of a 
prominent Georgian conductor and was performing famous works 
of the world piano classical music in both the symphonic and solo programs. 
The staff of the Tbilisi Centre of Music and Culture strongly believes in his creative 
potential. . . . 
The record does not include supporting evidence showing that the Tbilisi Centre of Music 
and Culture and the music schools for which the petitioner has worked (such as the 2. 
Paliashvili 2nd Music College) have a distinguished reputation. As stated previously, 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 158, 165 . . . . 
Nor is there evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from the 
other musicians and faculty members employed by the preceding organizations. The 
petitioner has not established that he was responsible for his employers' success or standing to 
a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role". . . . 
On motion, the petitioner does not address the AAO's findings directly. Rather, the petitioner submits 
event programs, concert flyers, and photographs for various music performances. These materials 
indicate that the petitioner participated in the performances, but they are not sufficient to demonstrate 
that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This regulatory criterion calls for evidence of commercial successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts;" 
simply submitting evidence indicating that the petitioner participated in various concerts or music 
programs cannot meet the plain language of this criterion. The record does not include evidence of 
documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner achieved commercial successes in the 
performing arts. For example, there is no indication that the petitioner's performances consistently 
drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in greater audiences than other 
similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence showing, for 
instance, that the petitioner's musical recordings have generated substantial national or international 
sales. Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination and our appellate findings that the petitioner 
has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at 
least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2); 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." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our appellate decision and in the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the prizes and awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
we cannot conclude that prizes won by the petitioner in age-restricted or "student" competition 
indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition 
from throughout his field, rather than limited to his approximate age group within the field. USCIS 
has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Cornrnr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a musician who has had success in competition 
restricted to pianists age 35 and under should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability 
employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Moreover, a comparison of the petitioner's accomplishments with those of his references indicates 
that the very top of his field is a level above his present level of achievement. For example, the 
biography accompanying letter states: 
has performed on the world's most prestigious concert stages in solo and 
collaborative recitals, and as a guest soloist with major orchestras, including London 
Symphony, Monte-Carlo Philharmonic, Montreal Symphony, Moscow Virtuosi, Russian 
and many others. . . . In 1985, she made a historic appearance with Beijing and Shanghai 
Philharmonic symphony orchestras as the first Soviet artist to tour China following the 
renewal of the cultural exchange. 
discography is released on Naxos, Marco Polo, and Melodiya labels, 
featuring works of Scarlatti, Bach, Liszt, Reger, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, 
Lyapunov, Rebikov, Prokoflev, Anderson, Confrey. Her album of Zez Confrey's Piano 
Music on Naxos American Classics Series received 42nd Grammy Awards nomination in the 
While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter ofRacine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. 111. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. Fj 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 22 
cate or "Best Classic'al Instrumental Soloist Performance wlo Orchestra," and her recording 
o g Piano Music, Vol. 1, was nominated for Deutsche Schallplattenpries. Her live 
performances are frequently broadcast on various tele- and radio programs in the USA and 
worldwide. 
has served as Professor of Piano and Head of the Keyboard Programs at 
School of Music in Chicago, Illinois, and taught at the Moscow and 
Tbilisi State Conservatoires, and the State University of New York. Her summer 
appointments as an artist-faculty have included International Keyboard Festival and Institute, 
New York City, International Festival-Institute at Round Top, Texas, Pianosummer at New 
Paltz, New York, Masterclasses International, Los Angeles, and Festival International de 
Colmar, France. She returns annually to present masterclasses as a guest faculty at Mannes 
College Yearlong Festival, New York City, and Tbilisi Sarajishvili State Conservatoire, 
Georgia. 
We cannot ignore that while - held an artist-faculty appointment at 
Pianosummer, the petitioner participated in that program as a "student" as recently as 2008. 
has performed as soloist with orchestras throughout the Americas, Europe and 
Asia. Recent engagements have included a televised performance of Rachmaninov's Piano 
Concerto No. 3 at the White Nights Festival in St. Petersburg; performances at the Stresa 
Festival in Italy under the baton of Yuri Bashrnet; in the Newport, Tanglewood, Vancouver, 
Gilmore festivals; with the symphony orchestras of Louisville, Brazil, Bogota, Jerusalem and 
the City of Birmingham, the Georgian State Orchestra, the Kirov Orchestra, the Israel 
Chamber Orchestra and others. 
As a very important part of his schedule, appears frequently in his homeland 
of Georgia in concerts, on television and radio. In January 2003, Georgian National TV 
released a full-length documentary about him and in Februa 2004 he performed at the 
inauguration of President Saakashvili. This season returns to Israel for the 
concerts with Israel Philharmonic Orchestra and Rafael de Burgos to perform Second 
Concerto by Brahms and Beethoven's "Emperor" and with Israel Chamber Orchestra for 
Beethoven's Fourth concerto and E flat major concerto . . . . He is also appearing in concerts 
with the Quebec City Symphony Orchestra, Georgian State Orchestra, Moscow Symphony 
Orchestra, Kirov Orchestra with Noseda, recitals and chamber music concerts at the Barge 
Festival, New York, Boston, Tel-Aviv, Glasgow, Calgary, Toulouse and Noeburg and Nice 
among others. 
An award-winning pianisreceived First prize and Gold Medal of the 
Arthur Rubinstein Piano Master Competition and First Prize at the Sydney International 
Piano Com etition. In 1999, to show appreciation for his efforts and contributions to the arts 
in Georgia was awarded with one of the most prestigious national awards, the 
Medal of Honor, bestowed on him by then-Georgian ~residenl- 
In this case, the accomplishments of - and indicate that the top of 
the petitioner's field is significantly higher than the level he has attained at this point in his musical 
career. Moreover, the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner has sustained national 
or international acclaim as a musician as of the petition's filing date. The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, 
rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. The 
conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
111. Conclusion 
I 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
thatle may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The AA07s February 9,2009 decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed. 
The petition will remain denied and the AAO will enter a separate 
finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted documents 
containing false claims in an effort to mislead USCIS on elements 
material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws 
of the United States.