dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 3 1 .2013 . 
IN RE: Petitioner: · 
Beneficiary : . 
·· .. ... 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigr ation Services 
Admini strative AppealsOffice (AAO) 
. 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship . · 
and ImmigratiQn . 
Services 
Office:TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION : Immigrant Petition for Alien Work~; as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Secti on 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 O.S.C, § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please f'ind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office ' in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to tljat office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately ·applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you ~ish to have considered, you may '-file a motiqn to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
acc9rda'nce with the i. n~tructions on Form I ~290 B , Notice of Appeal or ·Motion , with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements ,for fil_ing su<:;h. a··mption can be found at 8 <I:.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please-be aware tha~ · 8 C.ER. ,§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that tht;:, motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
· Thank you, 
v(7J__ 
- ~ r-- · · 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chid, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
. , 
Page 2 · 
DISCUSSION: The .Dire~tor, ·Texas ·service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
,petition, which is now before the Administ,rative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
· ·dismissed. · 
The · petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinarY ability" in the arts, specifically as a 
musician and a composer, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of ttie Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
- Act), 8 U.S.C. § 115;3(b)(l)(A). The director detenrtined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability: · 
Co1_1gress set a very high benchm~rk for ali~ns of extraordinary ,ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's ''sustained national : or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documen~ation" of the alien's .achievements. See $ection 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.:R .. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of;such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of spe~ific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h')(3)(i) through (x). The petitionermust 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the . ten regulatory ca'tegories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility ryquirements. · ' . 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred by determining that the petitioner failed to satisfy the 
criterion relating to brigirial, scholarly, and firtistic contributions of major significance. Additionally' 
counsel asserts that ~he petitioner is one of that small percentage \ who has risen to the top of the field of 
endeavor, as requir~d by the regulations and the statute. Counsel maintains that the director's final 
merits determination : was erroneous in that he failed to evaluate the evidence in its entirety and failed to 
evalvate the evidenc~ under the proper evidentiary standard .. 
I. LAW 
. . , . 
Section 203(b) of the {\.ct states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Prior.ity workers . . -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens 
described in any of the following ,subparagraphs (A) thFough (C): 
(A) Aliens .~ith ext~ao~dinary ability. -~Aft alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the · alien has extraordinary ability in the. sciences, arts, education, 
busin,ess, 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 seek~ to enter the United : States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)Page3 
(iii) the :alien's entry into the United States will· substantially benefit 
prosp·ectively the Uni~ed States. 
U.S. CitiZenship and:Immigration Services,(USCIS) a~d legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) ha~e. consi~teQ.tly ·'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 
·(199Q); 56 Fed. Reg.: 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in \hat .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 petitipner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of hi.s or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
- __ _ either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidem;:e under at least thre~ of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)~(x). -
' . . . . ·. \ . . . ' •'.. . : 
In 2010, the US. Co'-Irt of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of'a petition 
filed under this class,ification. Kazarian v. USC IS, 596.F.3d 11 i5 (9th Cir. 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 criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
·§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) an~ (vi), the court conclqded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns­
about the significanc~ .of the evidence subi:nitted to !J1eet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
bee'n raised in a sub_sequent "final merits determination." !d. at1121~22. . 
The court stated that the AAO's evalua1ion rested on· an i~proper understanding of the r~gufations .' 
Instead of parsing t~e significance of evidence as part 'of the iriitial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is tb count the types of evidence 'provided (whl;ch the.AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
I - ' - - -
failed to- submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is th~t the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
reg~latory- requirement of three types of evidence (as ~he AAD concluded)." ld. at . 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R: § 204:5(h)(3)). 
T-hus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach· when~ the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language r~quirements of each criterion claimed. As the. AAO concludes that the petitioner 
did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
_ petitioner has faile~ to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three . types of evidence. ld. 
Nevertheless, as the director's sole basis of denial -was a final merits determination, the AAO will also 
perform that' analysis·. . ·.·. 
1 Specifically, th~ cou~t stated that· the AAO had unilaterally ill!-posed novei substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204:5(h)(3)(vi). · · 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
II. ANALYIS 
A. Evidentiary _ Criteria 2 
Published material about-the alien' in professional or major tradepublications or other major media, 
relating to the a{ien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. ·Such evide.nce shall 
. include the title, 
1 
cjate, . and author of the material, and {my necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
1 
' • ' 
The petitioner. subm~tted evidence ~long with his Forrn .I-140 in support ofthis criterion. The director, 
after reviewing the ~vidence, concluded that the petitioner faile9 to satisfy the regulatory requirements 
and the petitioner \does not identify ~ny factual' or legal :error in this conclusion· on appeal. 
Consequently, the AAO concludes that the petitioner abandoned this claim . See Sepulveda v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d ·1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 
1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *i, *9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned hs he failed to .raise them on appeal to 
the AAO). . 
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 clas~ification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5Jh)(3)(iv). · . · 
The director determined in his decision that the petitioner met ,this regulatory criterion and the AAO 
affirms the director's conClusion's in this regard. · · 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, . athletic, or business-related 
. contributions ofm.ajor significance in the field 8.C.F.R. § 204:5(h)(3)(v). · 
. . . . ' 
The 'director det~~Iilined that the petitioner failed to meet this .criterion. ~n .the appeal brief, counsel 
asserts that the director's denial in this regard is not ~ufficiel}.tly supported by factual specifics and that 
the director '~ references to three of the support letters fqiled to ascribe the importance of the associated 
institutions. Coun~el further questions that the director's identification of the author of one of the letters 
by noting his assoCiation with a less distinguished institution rather than ~is position with the 
· Upon a. thorough review of the testimonial evidence, the AAO finds that the director 
properly weighed the evidence. The petitioner in this 'instance submitted over twenty letters from 
experts and colleagues attesting to his .original musical and scholarly contributions. However, USCIS 
determines the trutJi..·:n·bt by the: quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. ·Matter ofChawathe , 2~ 
· I&N De~. 369, 376 (AAO 20~0) citingMatter of E-M ;· 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comrn'r 1989). While the 
petitioner in this ms~ance submitted a· great qu~ntity of letter~ reJating 'tO the original contributions 
2 The .petitioner does not claim to .meet or subinit evidence r~lating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not dis~ussed in this decision. . · . 
(b)(6)Page 5 
criterion, a review of the submitted documents, including the content of the letters, indicates· that the 
. evidence is not of sufficient quality to satisfy the plain language requirements of the regulation. 
According to the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , an alien's contributions must be nor only 
original but of major ~ignificance. The AAO must presume that the phrase "major significance " is 
not superfluous and) thus, that it has some meani~g. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, 
L.P, 51 F: 3d 28, 3l (3rd Cir~ 1995) quoted in APWV v. P!_Jtter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, . 
2003). To be considered a contribution of major significance iri the field of music, it can be 
expected that the pe~itioher demonstrate sorrie notable impact within his genre as a whole. 
As an initial matter, a numb~r of .the letters that the petitioner submitted to establish this criteiion 
primarily discuss the petitioner's contributions to the local . musical community or to the local 
.coriun,unity generally. For instance, .the Executive :Director of the 1 
notes that th~ir grants <are evaluated by a panel of cofQillunity members. With respect to 
the Balkanic4s concerts , Mr. Prauer states: · 
[They] have provided the community with rare opportumtles, to hear music by 
composers from Balkan countries, performed by outstanding area · musicians. I't · is 
evident from ourgrant review pan~ls and from the community and audience responses 
to these concerts that Balkanicus is enriching the community with music and culture that 
would otherWise be unavailable. . 
· Similarly, while Assistant Professor of Music a~ . writes a 
complimentary letter and while she observes that the petitione·r has a rare combination of skills and 
experience, her overall summation ·of the petitioner's impact is that: "[the petitioner] will ce1tainly · 
enrich the. musicaL life of any American community ih which he chooses to live." the 
Executive Secretary for writes abo~t the positive contributions the petitioner has had 
on her specific ·organization , which. has a local resence. · Director, International 
· Relations Department fbr refers to an interview she had with the 
petitioner where he described .the I as a rare chance to "introduce audiences in 
Mirinesota to Bulgarian .·art and artists." This letter does not address the petitioner's ultimate impact in 
. his field. 
The letters from Dean, College of Arts and Sciences at the 
Senior Producer, Specialist, 
:Qirec.tor, Graduate Programs in Music Channel at 
Education at the'""'"'"-':== , E~ecutive Director, 
, Director of Undergraduate Studies, of 
Music; and Professor of Violin of the 
· impact in his current community , or a community 
organization with a local or regional presence. · 
, discuss the petitioner 's 
where he formerly resided, or for a particular . 
(b)(6)Page 6 
In the appeal brief, counsel asserts ·that th~ petitioner's impact in~ the field dm be determined by the fact 
tha~ he has lectured in 'various parts of theUnited States and be~n to workshops and conferences. The 
I . . . . ' ) 
participation at invited le.ctures in va·rious· locations .is insuffici~ntto demonstrate that the petitioner's 
contributions are o{ major significance in the field. Specifieally, while such lectures provide the 
.. petitioner with widef. ~xposurewithin the field, at issue is t.he ultimate::: impact of that exposure on that 
field. ' · · . · · 
Counsel, 'in the app,eal 'brief, attributes parti~ular importa~ce 'for on~ lecture the petitioner gave at 
and the two :suppOrt letters .from individuals wh9 obserired the lecture and are associated with 
Counsel asserts that one of the petitioner's references,· , Professor of 
• Composition at is aliving legend in the. music world. , On .behalf of the petitioner, he writes 
that: "[It] was a great pleasure to meet you ... I find the music you are discussing most interesting for I 
thiqk we do not enough abo1:1t ·it in this country." Wl}ile Dr. expresses interest, there is nothing in 
the content cifthe letter to 'suggest that he· finds the petitioner's contributions to be of major significance 
· in .the field. . On appeal, Dr. asserts that the petitioner's project ofpresenting music by Balkan 
composers to U.S. audiences is "incredibly important" . and expresses his hope that the petitioner "can 
.· expnd [sic] it to other regions bf our country/' Nothing in these letters suggests that the petitioner has 
already influenced h's field. · 
' 
' Similarly, the letter , from Chair of the· ¥us,ic History Department at 
compliments the petitioner on his single lecture-performance and states that it "was extremely 
instructive and enjo~able . " However, such sentiments do .riot substantiate a claim of major impact on 
the field. The reputation ·of an auth~H of a support ietter, rio ma~ter how distinguished, is insufficient to 
meet the requirernepts of this criterion. Rather, USCIS must evaluate the content of the letters 
themselves. 
The letters from Professor and Head of the D~partment of Anthropology, 
and ' _ , Professor 
of Cello and Chamb~r .Music, _ . largely discuss the petitioner's 
contributions as ·an .iducator arid promoter of Bulgarian music. These letters, however, are largely 
-'- conclusory ·rather than supported with examples of the· petitioner's . impact. ·. For example , Dr. 
simply states that the petitioner 's rese~ch ''elevated the subject of World music to a higher 
degree and increased the interest tr~mendously in this count~y." ·. USCis · need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertiOIJ.S. See 1756; Inc. v. The Attorney Genera.! ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 (D.C. Dist 1990). Or. discusses the petitioner's efforts to promote Bulgarian classical 
music through his radio show without explaining the ultimate result of those efforts. 
The letters from , Princ~pal Flute, former 
Principal Cellist. of the ,' cellist; Chair of the 
Departmt:rit of Chamber Music; _ and _ , Concertmaster 
·of the _ _ . are from the petitioner's . immediate circle of colleagues. While 
· such letters can be · impo-rtant in providing details al:Jout the petitioner's role in various projects, they 
cannot by thems~l~es estabii_sh· th~ impact ofthe petitioner's cohtributions beyond his immediate circle 
(b)(6)Page 7 
) 
of colleagues. Furthermore, the letters generally discuss the petitioner's proficiency and skill as a 
cellist, but do not specifically identify contributions that influenced the field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3q 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F. 3d 1115 {9th Cii. 2010) (finding letters that did 
not specifically idehtify contributions nor provide speCific examples of how those contributions 
influenced the field ~o be insufficient as major contributions). ' 
' The final group of letter.s relating to this criterion includes lytters from the following individuals: 
I 
Vice · President of Programs, _ Co-
Artistic Director, Director of Graduate Studies in Music, 
Seriior Program Director, 
Preside:nt; 
Director : of .Institute of Art Studies; and 
Chair of the Union · of These letters are conclusory in their 
discussion of the p'etitioner' s contributions to the field. As stated above, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc~ , 745 F. Supp. at 15. Moreover, in evaluating the 
reference letters, US~IS notes that letters c;ontaining mere assertions of widespread acclaim and vague . 
claims of contributi~ms are less persuasive than letters that specificillly identify contributions and 
provide specific exainples of how those contributions have influenced th~ field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petifioner's burden of proof. 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, Iizc. v. M,eissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). . 
Accordingly, for ail of the reasons dis~ussed above, the pet.itioner has failed to satisfy the plain 
· language requirements under 8C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). . . 
. I . . 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director determ(ned that the petitioner ni.et this criterion. The petitioner submitted evidence of an 
article, which was iqcluded in a compilation text titled, In response to the director 's 
request fqr evidence :(RFE), the petitioner asserted that I is based on the presentations at 
a conference and copstitutes "the authoritative · scholarly collec~ion on " Going on 
record without ·supporting documentary evidence is not sufficien.t for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proce~dings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). While the petitioner also 
sub.mitted evidence ! of another conference presentation, the record contains no evidence that this 
. presentation was published in conference proceedings or that the proceedings compilation constitutes 
· ' . professional or major trade publications or other major media. · 
Even if the petition~r had established that co,nstitutes a .Professional or .major trade 
publication or other major media, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
requires evidence of"scholarly articles" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence.· Section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, · not all of the criteria at 
(b)(6)· · Page 8 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in ·the pluraL Specifidtlly, the reguiations .at 8 . C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service 9n a single judging panel ora single high salary. When 
a regulatory criteriot\ wishes to include the singtilar ,within' .the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at8 C.F.R. § 20(5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the AAO .can ~nfer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheldUSCIS ' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or 
plural is used 'in a regulation. 3 Because the petitioner in this ins~ance . only submitted a single article, he· 
has failed to satisfy :t.he plain 'language :equirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the 
AAO withdraws the: direc.tor's finding with regard to this criterion and concludes that the petitioner 
failed to satisfy .the regulatory requirements. 
' . . . . 
Evidence of the display oft he alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii): ·. . · . 
In his initial application packet, the petitioner submitted evidence of his pefformances, asserting that 
these performances constitute the display of his work in the field; at aitistic exhibitions or showcases. In 
the RFE, the directqr advised that this criterion is reserved for the vis'ualarts. The director did not 
further discuss this criterion in the final denial. The. petitio~er fails to raise p. challenge regarding this 
criterion on· appeal a'nd ~he AAO concludes that the petitioner abandoned this claim. See Sepulveda, · 
40i F.3d at 1228 n. 2; · Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. . 
Alternatively , the : ~AO affirm~ the director's statement in tl}e RFE ·that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii).is limited to the visual arts. This interpretatiqn is longstanding and has bee1i. upheld 
by a federal district court. ·See Negro-Plurnpe, 2:07-CV~820-ECR~RJJ at *7 (upholding an 
interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As 
the petitioner is not 
1 
a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at 
exhibitions or showc'ases, and is instead a musician, the petitionet has not submitted qualifying evidence 
that meets the plain l~nguage requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Therefore,thb petitiqner has failedtosufficiently demonstrate that he met this evidentiary criterion and 
has otherwise .failed to properly raise this matter on appeaL ' · 
Evidence that the alien has performed in · a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments thiu have a distinguished-reputation. 8 C.F.R.. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
This criterion antic~pates thp.t a .leading role should be apparent by its. position m the .overall 
organizational hierarchy and that' it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role 
· ~hould he app·arent from the petiti?ner ' s)mpact on the organization or the establishment's activities .· 
3 See Maram}aya v. USC!S, Civ: Act: No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. · Cir ~ March 26, 2008); Snapname s.com 
·Inc, v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at '*10 (D. Or. Nov, 30, 2006} (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requifemeilt f0r. "a" bachelor's degree or " a~ ' foreign equivalent degree at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires 
a single degree rather than a 'combination of academic credentials). · . . . 
(b)(6)
l . 
Page 9 
The petitioner's perfor.m~nce in ·this role should establis~ whether the role. was critical for 
organizations or establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demons.trate that the organizations 
or ·establishments (in the plural) have a distinguisli~d reputation. While neither the regulation rior 
precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation / Merriam:-Webster's online dictionary 
defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence , distinction , or excellenc ·e. "4 Dictionaries are not of 
thefuselve~ evidenc~, but they may be referred · to <;iS aids to the memory and understanding Of the 
cou,rt. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. at·306. Therefore, it is the _ p~titioner's burden to demonstrate that 
the organizations or establishments. claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, 
excellence, or a siritilar. reputation. _ The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these 
elements to meet' the plain language requirements of this criterion. · 
The director determined that th.e petitioner satisfied the requirements of this criterion based on the 
fact that the petitioner was the producer of Balkan Jamboree on since 2010 and that he 
was the organizer aQ.d creator for the Balkanicus concerts, presented by the _ 
While the petitioner has shown that he performed in a. leading or critical role on behalf of Balkan 
Jamboree and the ~alkanicus concerts, he has failed to satisfy the remaining elements of the plain 
language requirements. The petitioner ha~ fa'iled to include · documentation showing that Balkan 
Jamboree and the l3alkanicus concer.ts are structured or ' organized in such a manner that either the 
show or the conceJ,i series could be considered an "organization" or. an "establishment" The 
etitioner does not claim that he played aleading or criti~al role for or the 
as a whole. 
. ' 
Furthermore, the record does not contain evidence . showing that Balkan Jamboree has a 
distinguished reputation. , the Executive Director for _ states that the 
petitioner is "a val~able resource" .and · the petitioner's program "presents unique music to our 
listening audience" ~nd "is a cultural treasure." While the letter is complimentary to the showand to 
. the . petitioner, it is.1 insufficient to support a determination that the show enjoys a disti'nguished 
reputatiqn .. _ 
Similarly, while ~a~kanicus has received some positive feedba_ck, local press coverage, and received 
some grant funding ;; the evidence of record is insufficient to support a determination that the concert 
series enjoys .a distin&uished reputation. However; even assuming argewido, that Balkanicus has a 
r distinguished · reputation, the petitioner still would be _ uriable to satisfy .all of the regulatory 
requirements for this c'riterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
requires evidence. oi .a: leading. or critical role for "organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputqtion '; (emphasis added) in the plural, which i!'; consistent with the statutory 
requirement for exterisive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act. As analyzed previously in the 
·discussion for the ctiter:ion for scholarly articles, Iiot all of th~ criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
·worded . in the phual and_ the AAO can infer -that the ph.i.'ral in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meamng. Thtis, the petitioner has failed to sc:ttisfy the plain language · requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). · · 
4 See http://w~w.mcrii <l m-webstcr.com/dictionaty / distin~uishcd, a<:;cessed on January 28, 2013. 
(b)(6)Page 10 . 
:·. 
Accordingly, the AAp . withdraws.the director's finding with regard to this criterion and concludes that 
the · petitioner failed · to satisfy . the plain language . requirements as outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Sununary 
In light of the above~ the petitioner has not submitted 'the requisite evidence under at least three of the . 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the 'minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary; ability. Nevertheless, given that the 
director's basis for d:enial was the final merits determination, the AAO will similarly review all of the 
evidence in the aggr~gate. ·· · · · 
( · 
C. Final Merits Dete.rmination 
In accordance with the. Kazarian opinion, the AAO must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evi9ence in the context of whether or noLthe 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] f}.eld ofendeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
. national or international acciaim and that his or het achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. ~ § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. . . . . 
! •• . 
. The record reveals tbat the petitioner came onto the music scene early as a performer and musician in 
Bulgaria, as evidehc~d by his participation in the ~--
The record also reve.als some early successes and media coverage in Bulgaria, such as radio programs 
.and television broad~asts ·in Bulgaria. However, . section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act requires th?t an alien 
demonstrate '~sustain¢d" acclaim. The record reveals that after completing a doctoral program in music 
education in the United States, he continued his work as a musiqian and composer in the United States. 
While he has garnered local m·edia covemge, is involved with a musical program on a regional raqio 
station, and has partibpated at lectures and conferences, the· record on the whole does not establish that 
he ha$'SUStalned nati0nalor international acclaim. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act · 
The numerous -letterS, from members of the. petitioner's ·field have been considered .in detail above . . For 
.the reasons. discussed · above, . these .letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner's impact in the . 
,field. Many of the )etters al~o state that the petitioner is an accomplished scholar, but they do not 
. actually dis.cuss. or identify p~rticular works demonstrating his scholarship. Moreover, the petitioner has 
· only submitted one scholarly article as evidence. Beyond mere dissemination in the field, the petitioner 
must demonstrate the impact of his scholarly work upon dissemination. · 
' . 
While the petitioner : submits evidenc~ th~t he has judged the .works of oth~rs pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2045(h)(3)(iv), the ilatur~ · of t~e judging experience is a relevant consideration in the final merits 
· determination. as to '' whether th~ · evidence is indicative of national or international acclaim. See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. The petitioner .submitted evidence showing that he was invited to serve as· 
(b)(6)
. . . 
Page 11 
an artistic adjudicator of the . - ~ The competition is part of a 
program that allows students from grade seven through age 25 to participate in community recitals as 
well as the annual competition, arid includes stud~nts at the · who are preparing 
for a professional career in music. The competition is age restricted and there is .nothing i"n the record to 
indicate that the competition is recogni~ed beyond the immediate community. Furthermore , the 
petitioner's involvement with appears, albeit over multiple years, to be the only 
I . . . . . 
evidence of judging, :which is not consistent with national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel i asserts that the petitioner was involved in staging performances of previously 
unheard music in the United States, and, on occasion; previously ! unheard music in the world. While the 
act of bringing novel and unique music to audi~nces for the iirst time has merit, novelty does not 
necessarily translate: to a . major contribution or otherwise indicate that the person responsible for 
presenting the novel :music has demonstrated that he is at the top of his field. 
' -
In evaluating the entjrety of the record, the evidence in the aggregate does hot distinguish the petitioner 
as one of the small p~rcentage who has risen to the very top of th,e field of endeavor. Specifically, while 
the AAO acknowledges that the praise of the petitioner's peers, the petitioner 's participation as a judge 
of local age-restricted competitions, regional promotion of , Balkan classical music, and limited 
scholarship is indi~ative of an a-ccomplished musician, it is not commensurate with national · or 
international acclaim and status among the small percentage at :the top of his field. Consequently, the 
AAO concludes t_h* there is no indication that . the di~ector · failed to apply the proper evidentiary 
standard and affirms his conclusion that the petitioner did not establish that he is within the small 
. percentage at the to~ of his field. · 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation 'submitted in support of a claim of extraor~inary ability must clearly demonstrate 
.that the alien has ac4ieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the :Very top of the field of endeavor. 
~· . . 
Review of the recor;·d, however, does not establish that the pe~itioner has distinguished himself as an 
actress to such · an ~xtent that he may be said to have achieyed sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within t.he small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indica,tes that the 
·-' petitioner is a talented cellist, but is · not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above ~lmost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
. pursuant to section ~03(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may.not be approved . . 
The l::iurden o(proof:in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner : Section 291 of the 
Aci, 8 U.S;C. § 136}. 1-iere, the petitioner has not sustai~ed that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. · · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .. _