dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

MATTER OF A-M-0-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 1, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts 
as a collaborative pianist and vocal coach. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On April 8, 2014, the Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The 
classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. After serving a 
request for evidence (RFE), the Director determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or 
satisfaction of at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
and an administrative decision from this office. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for 
the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one­
time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or documentation that she is one of the small 
percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
II. RELEVENT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
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--
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
(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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the Petitioner does not submit this evidence, then she 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd , 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) for the 
display of her work, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) through her performance of a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner's appellate brief maintains that the Director did not address the 
Petitioner's service on the jury at the Piano Competition. The Petitioner initially 
filed foreign language evidence pertaining to this panel with translations that were not certified in 
accordance with 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Petitioner's RFE response resubmitted this material 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
with a certified translation. The Petitioner also provided the competition rules, which sufficiently 
demonstrate the Petitioner met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this 
case, documentation that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must reflect that the 
Beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we 
will therefore 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. 
§ 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not made 
such a showing. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. 
The Petitioner satisfied the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). A review 
of her performance for Opera Center, . and to a lesser extent 
for the Symphony Orchestra, collectively are representative of a successful career. 
These roles, by themselves, are not extensive evidence of the Petitioner's national or international 
acclaim. As discussed below, the remaining evidence does not demonstrate the Petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim or that 
she has risen to the very top of her field. 
Although some of the competitions in which the Petitioner received a prize or an award bear the 
word "National" within the competition's title, we will not presume that the awards issued at such 
competitions are necessarily indicative of national or international acclaim or having risen to the · 
very top of the field. National and international recognition results through the awareness of the 
accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. Moreover, even if the Petitioner had 
established that her awards are nationally or internationally recognized in the field, some awards 
with that level of recognition may still be geared towards promoting the careers of youth rather than 
recognizing those with achievements that place them at the top of the field, which includes those 
with experience. 
The record contains two letters from _ a professor at the National 
Conservatory of Music in , who served as the judge at the Petitioner's first place finish for 
the Piano Competition. In his July 15, 2013, letter, he characterized the event 
as "one of the most important at the child and youth levels in Venezuela and Latin America." In 
his January 27, 2015, letter, Professor indicated that the Petitioner received a monetary 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
prize, was afforded the opportunity to go abroad for festivals and programs, and was invited to 
perform with recognized orchestras in Venezuela. He described the three-stage competition as 
beginning with 15-20 competitors. He did not specify the pool from which the participants are 
selected but explained that the aim of the competition is to "help young pianists within the ages of 
1 0-16 to begin their careers." These letters contain insufficient detail regarding the pool of 
competitors and awareness of the event in the field to demonstrate the recognition of the competition 
beyond the awarding entity. More significantly, his discussion does not confirm that winning these 
awards is indicative of national or international acclaim and status among the small percentage at the 
top of the field. 
The Petitioner also included two articles from newspaper according to the 
printout from www.onlinenewspapers.com that the Petitioner submitted. These articles covered the 
Competition and the Piano Competition, both in 
. The Petitioner asserts that the original petition contained circulation statistics that represent 
the national or international recognition of her awards. However, a review of this evidence reveals 
that it derives from Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances 
about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site. 1 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, this documentation carries very little 
evidentiary weight within the present proceedings. The Director's RFE and final decision both 
notified the Petitioner that the information from Wikipedia was not sufficient, but the Petitioner does 
not remedy this concern on appeal with additional supporting information. As a result, the record 
does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's prizes or awards at these two 
competitions are nationally or internationally recognized or are otherwise demonstrative of sustained 
acclaim and placement among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner initially discussed her affiliation with two organizations; the Opera 
as well as the Opera Program. The record demonstrates that the Opera 
Program enjoys a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner submitted several items from the 
_ website. The material titled, " '' reflects that the training program offers 
master class and performance opportunities and that admission into the program "is based on talent 
rather than financial ability." However, neither this information nor any other probative evidence 
from the organization establishes the specific requirements for admission or confirms that it is an 
association that admits members (as the Petitioner suggested), rather than students or program 
participants. In his letter, Director of Musical Studies at the 
, provided some information about the selection process. The Director concluded there was a 
1 Wikipedia is subject to a disclaimer explaining that the website "allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its 
content" and its content has not "necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise .... Wikipedia cannot 
guarantee the validity of the information found here." The website organizers allow the content of any given article to 
"have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge 
in the relevant fields." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on November 2, 2015, 
a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
lack of probative corroborating documentation. Within the appeal, the Petitioner discusses the 
Director's analysis of Mr. letter, but does not offer additional information that reveals this 
organization's membership requirements. Regarding Mr. statements, without information 
from the Opera Program, Mr. assertions are not supported by corroborating 
evidence. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Moreover, Mr. did 
not provide specifics relating to the level of achievement required. Securing a position in a 
distinguished training program is not necessarily indicative of acclaim or status among the small 
percentage at the top of the field. 
In reference to the Studio, the Petitioner submitted the following: the Petitioner's employment 
contract 
to serve as a coach and pianist; general information from the organization's website or from 
other websites; evidence from Wikipedia; organizational programs containing references to the 
Petitioner; and letters from those in leadership positions within the organization. The documentation 
establishes the distinguished reputation of this organization. The contract; letter from 
Director of the studio; and information from this organization's website, however, did not 
indicate that the Petitioner's position as a pianist/coach constituted a membership in this entity, as 
suggested by the Petitioner. Regardless, although Ms. described the level of talent and 
ability that coaches and directors must possess, she did not specify any outstanding achievements 
that individuals in these positions must already have accomplished. While the Petitioner also 
provided a letter from Professor of Music at the Mr. 
did not sign that letter. Ultimately, while the Petitioner's ability to obtain a position with a 
distinguished entity confirms her skill, it does not place her at the top of the field or demonstrate her 
acclaim. 
The Petitioner provided numerous articles as evidence under the published material criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Director determined that for those articles that were about the 
Petitioner and related to her work in the field, the 
record lacked information to demonstrate the 
publications were professional or major trade publications, or other major media. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides the list of articles and other documents that should be considered as published 
material and references information about the publications that she submitted initially as part of 
exhibit 11. The specific circulation data in that exhibit, however, derived from Wikipedia. As 
discussed above, the Director advised the Petitioner in the RFE and the final decision that this 
website is not reliable. See Lamilem Badasa, 540 F.3d at 909. Without evidence of the 
publications' circulation, distribution, or other factors indicative of major media, the articles not only 
do not meet the requirements of the published material criterion, they are not indicative of the 
Petitioner's sustained acclaim. 
The Petitioner established that she performed as a judge of the work of others in the field in one 
instance, the Piano Competition. This event's rules reflect that the competitors were 
young artists. Mr. assertion relating to the importance of this competition is not 
probative as the record lacks corroborating documentation. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A single 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
instance of judging a national youth competition is not a record of achievement in accord with a 
performing artist who has risen to the top of her field. 
The letters that the Petitioner provided as evidence of contributions of major significance in the field 
not only do not meet the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v), they are not 
indicative of acclaim or status among the few at the top of the field. The plain language of the phrase 
"m~or significance" requires an impact beyond one's employer and clients, customers or 
patients. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). The Petitioner 
discusses her arrangement for two pianos to perform and 
presents the . ) letter from As noted above, this letter is not signed and, 
thus, has no evidentiary weight. She also submitted a letter from Associate 
Professor of Piano at the Dr. stated that 
the Petitioner's performances "will be highly-recognized "; however, he did indicate how her work 
has already been influential in the field as a whole. The Petitioner also points out that her 
arrangement for was sufficiently important that it made a national premiere with 
the Symphony Orchestra to celebrate the anniversary of the original 
composition. While this selection may show the piece is well regarded, the Petitioner does not 
describe what impact her arrangement has had in the field or how it garnered her acclaim. 
The Petitioner also points to media attention directed to her work, including radio interviews, 
concluding that the media has the potential to reach a large number of people. However, the 
Petitioner has· not identified the manner in which such attention influenced the field, especially as 
she did not submit probative evidence relating to the importance or the reach of the publications in 
which the articles appeared. Further, while a public radio station may be accessible to everyone in 
the listening area, the Petitioner has not established this station's actual listening audience, or how 
· this broadcast has influenced the field in a significant way. Without evidence of the reach of the 
various media outlets, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this coverage garnered her national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner discusses her performances at premiere events, such as the production of 
and the regional premiere of The Petitioner indicates that the letter 
from Director of the explained the importance of these performances. 
Within her letter, Ms. stated the performances were acclaimed and that they "contributed 
significantly to Opera's success with the production." The plain language of the 
phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's 
employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. at 134 (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met the contributions criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in 
the field as a whole). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that these performances garnered the 
Petitioner national or international acclaim beyond the local audiences who attended. 
Finally, the Petitioner states her contribution in the field is "that she continues to strengthen the 
tradition of performing new pieces and to new audiences, which is critical to advancing the field of 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
music." The record does not specifically address how the Petitioner's original work has made an 
impact in the field at large or how any impact has garnered her national or international acclaim. 
Within the above quote, she identifies how she has made some progress within the general field of 
music, rather than how her work has been significantly influential or acclaimed. 
Solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient evidence of contributions of major 
significance. 2 Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th eir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th eir. 201 0). The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive confirmation of eligibility; users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility, See id. at 795; 
see also Matter of V-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Caron Int '1, 19 
I&N Dec. at 795; see also Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California , 
14 I&N Dec. at 190); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give 
minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on 
contributions of major significance in the field). We have considered all the reference letters, 
including those not specifically mentioned . In the context of the final merits determination , the 
evidence the Petitioner submitted to exhibit her impact or influence in the field is not indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Although the Petitioner satisfied the display criterion within the antecedent procedural step at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), within the final merits determination, we look at the nature of the 
performances and any repute the Petitioner may have gained as a result to assess the quality of the 
evidence submitted. The Petitioner has performed with distinguished groups such as the ' 
Symphony Orchestra. However, the 
record does not contain documentation to show, for instance, 
that her performances garnered her personal attention at a highly elevated level, in a manner consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, the Petitioner did not submit probative 
evidence of media reflecting that the events brought the Petitioner individual national or international­
level critical acclaim. 
Regarding the Petitioner's salaries and wages under 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Petitioner must 
present objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high 
remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period. See 
2 In 20 I 0, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language ." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). 
The material the Petitioner provided to establish her salary or wages are two employment contracts 
between herself and her 2013 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2), and her 2013 
Form 1099-MISC, and, in response to the RFE, a June 19, 2014, job offer from the 
offering a salary of $50,000 for the academic year. The employment contracts reflect 
she earned $2,000 and $3,000 respectively, approximately $23,005 appears on the Form W-2 
issued to her, and approximately $3,418 on the Form 1099-MISC from the Opera Program. 
The initial cover letter and the appeal discuss a $44.23 hourly wage from the 
however, the Petitioner did not identify the evidence demonstrating the source of this hourly wage 
figure and the initial evidence did not confirm the Petitioner's wage for that institution. In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner documented an offer from the university for $50,000 for the academic 
year, which the Petitioner calculated to be an hourly wage of $32.05. Relying on a rehearsal 
schedule, the Petitioner calculated that her hourly wage for was $150 based on 20 hours of 
work. 
The Petitioner relies on the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey for the $24.08 hourly 
wage as the data with which to compare to her salary or remuneration . This figure only applies to 
the Texas Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Foreign Labor 
Certification (FLC) Data Center's Online Wage Library relies on the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS) OES wage estimates .3 The BLS produces occupational employment and wage estimates for 
over 450 industry classifications at the national level. The employment data are benchmarked to 
average employment levels.4 Regarding information found on the website, the 
information is also collected through the OES survey, conducted by the BLS.5 The plain language of 
the regulation requires the Petitioner to establish her salary is high when compared to others in the 
field. As such, average statistics limited to one particular area do not meet this requirement. The 
Petitioner also identifies the FLC 's different wage levels in support of her hourly wage being high. 
The FLC utilizes four wage levels that benchmark the average wage commensurate with 
"experience, education, and the level of supervision." 6 The Petitioner has not shown that a wage 
above the average of a level four wage level necessarily meets the plain language requirements of 
the high salary criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner 's position with the · was as 
a Visiting Assistant Professor. The Petitioner has not provided wages for professors at institutions of 
higher learning for comparison purposes. 
3 http://www. tlcdatacenter.com /casedata .aspx 
4 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes _ emp.htm#estimate s 
5 http://www. · 1faq/faqsnewtopics .aspx 
6 See http://www .flcdatacenter.com /download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf at page 6, accessed on 
November 2, 2015 , a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding s. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-0-S-
Regarding the Petitioner's services for the Petitioner established she received $3,000 for a 
concert titled The Petitioner provided an employment contract for this 
commitment that reflected the Petitioner would receive the stated funds for her work. The Petitioner 
estimated her hourly commitment to this concert to be 20 hours for an hourly wage of $150. To 
support the number of hours, she submitted a rehearsal schedule for the j 
project reflecting approximately 20 hours of rehearsal and performance time in February 2014. The 
contract, however, covered January 18, 2014, through February 22, 2014, and indicated that the 
Petitioner would be involved in numerous aspects of the project, including coaching artists. The 
Petitioner has not shown that all of those duties would occur during the scheduled rehearsals, with 
no prior personal preparation or additional time spent coaching. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual 
(AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD11-14, page 11, (December 22, 2010), 
http://www. usc is. gov I sites/ default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memorandali -140-evidence-pm -6002-00 5-
l.pdf in support of the data she provided to compare her compensation. While this memorandum 
states that some governmental statistics "may be helpful in evaluating" evidence under this criterion, 
this data may not be the determining factor regarding whether a Petitioner has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. As the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that her salary is high when compared with others performing similar work 
nationally, she has not established that her remuneration level is among that small percentage who 
have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserted that her evidence was comparable to the commercial success criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 7 Her RFE response indicated that the groups to which she belongs, or has 
belonged, are very successful commercially. An example is her critical role with The 
Petitioner points to the information relating to the and how the organization achieved 
commercial success. The Petitioner refers to the Director of the and how he attributed 
success entirely to the artists within the organization. The Petitioner did not provide the box 
office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales data. Without such information, the 
Petitioner has not fully documented this organization's success. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the Petitioner's performances and recordings are indicative of, or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of her field. 
Finally, considering the full measure of the Petitioner's ability and achievements, the level of her 
national or international recognition, and the extent to which her achievements have been recognized 
in the field are not indicative of a record of sustained acclaim. The Petitioner has shown notable 
success through her performance of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with 
7 The criterion expressly relates to the performing arts, the Petitioner's field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(4) 
allows the submission of comparable evidence where the criteria do not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation. 
9 
Matter of A-M-0-S-
a distinguished reputation. The remaining evidence, however, does not place her among that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Ultimately, the Petitioner has not 
established that she currently qualifies for this classification. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation. submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The record in the aggregate, however, does not 
reflect that the Petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top 
of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the Petitioner's achievements set her significantly 
above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established her eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-0-S-, ID# 14590 (AAO Dec. 1, 2015) 
10