dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 3 
WAC 98 006 50318 
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. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
k~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
California Service Center. In connection with the petitioner's Application to Register Permanent Residence or 
Adjust Status (Form I-485), the director served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the 
petition (NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director ultimately revoked the approval of the 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140). The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(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 determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is unable to provide additional evidence relating to his awards, that 
he "did not fiaud the USCIS" and that he "should not be responsible for the error made by the USCIS." 
The director's decision contains no suggestion that the petitioner's case involves fraud. Rather, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated his eligibility for the classification sought. Section 205 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1155, provides that "[tlhe Attorney General [now Secretary, Department of Homeland 
Security], may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any 
petition approved by him under section 204." The realization by the director that the petition was approved 
in error may be good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 
(BIA 1988). Thus, contrary to counsel's implication otherwise, the law allows the director to remedy an 
erroneous approval. 
Other than a brief assertion regarding the petitioner's inability to acquire more evidence regarding his 
awards, counsel does not address any of the director's specific concerns regarding eligibility. We will briefly 
address those concerns below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a Chinese musical saw 
performer, composer and educator. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten 
criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted award certificates issued by various entities in Shanghai between 1985 and 1987 and a 
Second Prize Award from the 1984 National Builders' Song Collection Competition organized by the Chinese 
National General Union and Chinese Musicians Association. The NOIR noted the lack of evidence regarding 
the significance of these awards and determined that the awards "appear to be local in nature." In response, the 
petitioner asserted that the awards were 15 to 20 years old and that he was unable to obtain additional 
information about their significance. The director concluded that the petitioner had not overcome his concerns. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the petitioner's claim that he is unable to obtain additional information about 
awards issued so long in the past. 
From the information submitted, it is clear that Shanghai entities issued all but one of the petitioner's awards. 
Thus, we affirm the director's conclusion that these awards appear to be local. According to 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(b)(l), the unavailability of evidence creates a presumption of eligibility. Regardless, even if the 
petitioner had established that the National Builders' Song Collection Competition prize was a nationally 
recognized prize, it was awarded in 1984, 13 years before the petitioner left China and filed the instant petition. 
A petitioner must demonstrate sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. Without persuasive evidence of 
acclaim more proximate to the date of filing, a 13-year-old award is not evidence of sustained acclaim. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classzjication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
The petitioner submitted membership cards for the Chinese Musicians Association, the Shanghai Accordion 
Association and the Shanghai Musical Saw Association. The petitioner submitted information from an 
unknown source indicating that the China Saw Society was established on April 14, 1988 and has about 60 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
members. While the information indicates that the saw is difficult to vlav, it does not discuss the membershiv A -, 
requirements of the society. -resident of the Anhwei Association. U.S.A., purports to confirm that 
the petitioner is a member of the Shanghai Musicians Association and "our association." 
In the director's notice of intent to revoke, he noted the lack of evidence that any of the above associations 
required outstanding achievements of their members. Rather, the director determined that the associations 
appeared to be open to members of a field. - In response, the petitioner submitted evidence that he was appointed 
as "the standing director of Handsaw Speciality [sic] Committee of Shanghai Association of Musician" on April 
16, 1997.Head of the Shanghai Association of China Music Saw, asserts that the petitioner is a 
council member of the Shanghai Association of China Music Saw. ~rmx~lains that the China music saw is 
"a new and rare instrument in China'' and, thus, there are not many players. Finally, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that he joined the Music Teachers' Association of California in May 200 1, after the date of filing. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted the minimum membership requirements for the 
above associations. Counsel does not contest this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. While 
some of the director's concerns are not supported by the record, they are also irrelevant. Specifically, the 
director asserted that the record contains no evidence of the petitioner's rank in these associations or the number 
of members. The record, however, indicates that the petitioner was a standing director of the "Handsaw 
Speciality [sic] Committee" of the Shanghai Association of Musicians and a council member of the Shanghai 
Association of China Music Saw. The record also indicates that the China Saw Society has "about" 60 
members. Nevertheless, this information is irrelevant to this criterion. The criterion requires membership in an 
association that requires outstanding achievements of its members. Rank and size are not elements of this 
criterion. Ultimately, we concur with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established that any of 
the above associations require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by national (not local or 
regional) experts in the field. 
Published materials 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 of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
The petitioner submitted articles published in Chinese-language U.S. papers and local Shanghai papers. All but 
one of the U.S. articles are about a seminar at which the petitioner performed. While the petitioner did not 
provide full and complete translations, it appears from the excerpts that these articles were primarily about the 
seminar, not the petitioner. One U.S. article, however, does appear to focus on the petitioner. Similarly, one of 
the articles in the local Shanghai press is about the petitioner and another published the lyrics to one of his 
songs, while the remaining articles appear to focus on festivals at which the petitioner received local honors. 
The petitioner also submitted articles published in the Chinese Xinmin Evening Netvs, Unity Press, The Journal 
of Workers' Music and Teachers' Week&. The record does not contain the distribution data for the Xinmin 
Evening News, but the article in that paper focuses primarily on a festival hosted by a Shanghai entity at which 
the petitioner received a local honor. The remaining articles all appear to focus on the petitioner, but were 
published in 1985. Finally, the petitioner submitted one article published in an unidentified paper on an 
unspecified date. 
In his NOIR, the director determined that the articles were mostly not about the petitioner, from "foreign based 
publications and local in nature." The director noted the lack of evidence regarding the circulation of any of the 
above publications. In response, the petitioner submitted articles in Chinese-language U.S. papers, all but one of 
which are dated after the date of filing. Many of these articles are reviews of events where the petitioner 
performed. The director concluded that the petitioner had failed to overcome the director's concern regarding 
the lack of evidence regarding the circulation of any of the above publications. The petitioner does not contest 
this conclusion on appeal. 
In general, we do not consider publications that are printed in a language that the majority of the population 
cannot comprehend to be major media. In addition, papers without a significant distribution outside 'of the 
Shanghai region are not major media. The publishers of Unity Press, The Journal of Workers' Music and 
Teachers ' Weekly do not appear to be local entities. It is the petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that 
these publications are major media and distributed nationally. Even if we were to conclude that the articles that 
appear in three papers are about the petitioner and appeared in major media, they were all published in 1985, 12 
years before the petitioner left China and filed the petition. Thus, these articles are not evidence of sustained 
acclaim after 1985. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field. 
president of the L.A. Chinese Musicians Ensemble asserts that the petitioner is one of 12 
musicians certified by the Yamaha Music Foundation to pass the advanced level for Electronic Organists. Mr. - 
residing in the United States, does not explain how he has personal knowledge of this assertion. 
President of the Anhwei Association, U.S.A., asserts that the petitioner "has obtained outstanding 
achievements in the field of music and contributes a lot to old music." f the Shanghai Musical 
Saw Society asserts that the petitioner "has made great contribution to the art of China musical saw as well as 
other aspects in the field of music." ~rreiterates the petitioner's credentials and asserts that very few 
individuals play the China musical saw. Neither M~H nor Mr identifies any specific contribution or 
explain how it has influenced the field of music. Moreover, Mr. residing in the United States, does not 8 explain how he has personal knowledge of the petitioner's purported influence in China. 
The petitioner also submitted a 1993 thesis acceptance notice from the Chinese Musicians Association. The 
association asserts that the petitioner's thesis will be included in their Piano Teaching and Research for 
Colleges of Education. The association predicts that the petitioner's paper "will have a significant realistic 
impact for piano education for adults." Predictions of future impact are insufficient. The petitioner has not 
established that his work is routinely assigned as course materials for music education students or that he has 
otherwise influenced the field of music education as a whole in China. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of the petitioner's influence on the field of music in 
China or the United States. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the 
director. The sole evidence to meet this criterion consists of the general assertions of witnesses that the 
petitioner does, in fact, meet this criterion. The witnesses do not explain their conclusion and the record 
contains no objective evidence confirming their claims. The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) 
reflect the statutory demand for "extensive documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions 
from witnesses whom the petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. Independent 
evidence that already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
Page 6 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In 1987, the Children's Publishing Company published the book "Famous Chinese and Foreign Music from 
Movies and TV: Training Music Notes for Piano, Electronic Organ and Accordion," edited and "dubbed" by the 
petitioner. In 1990 the Shanghai Music Publishing Company published the book "Selection of Russian Popular 
Songs" edited and "dubbed" by the petitioner. On an unspecified date, the petitioner authored a manuscript on 
keyboard technique and improving teacher training. While the petitioner asserts that this manuscript was 
published as a book in 1993 by the college where he was teaching at the time, the record minimally supports this 
assertion. A 1993 thesis acceptance notice from the Chinese Musicians Association asserts that the petitioner's 
thesis will be included in their Piano Teaching and Research for Colleges of Education. The record does not 
include a copy of the actual publication and the petitioner has not established that it constitutes professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's NOIR, in which he questioned the impact of the petitioner's book and manuscript, 
the petitioner submitted his articles on learning piano published in Chi Am Daily after the date of filing. In his 
final decision, the director concluded that the petitioner had not established the impact of his book and 
manuscript. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal. 
We need not reach the director's concerns regarding the impact of the petitioner's written work because the 
regulation and 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires that the articles be scholarly and that they appear in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
1993 book was published at all or that his 1987 and 1990 books were published in major media. Moreover, we 
are not persuaded that editing a collection of music constitutes authorship of scholarly articles. Even if we 
concluded that the 1987 and 1990 books were scholarly articles published in major media, they were published 
10 years prior to the date of filing, and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's sustained acclaim as of 
that date. Finally, the articles in Chi Am Daily do not appear in major media and were published after the date 
of filing. As such, they cannot establish the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he had performed at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal. We concur with the director for the 
reasons discussed below. 
The petitioner asserted that on July 8, 1997, Chinese television stations in Los Angeles "introduced" the 
petitioner and his song. The record contains no confirmation of this assertion from the television stations 
themselves. The petitioner also performed at a seminar in Southern California in 1997. The seminar does not 
appear to have been an artistic exhibition or showcase. Similarly, the petitioner performed at a teachers' festival 
in Shanghai. The petitioner has not established that a teachers' festival is an artistic exhibition or showcase. 
The petitioner was also invited to compose music for two television shows. The record does not establish that 
either show was intended to function as an exhibition or showcase of music. As stated above, the petitioner 
edited and "dubbed" two books of piano music. The petitioner has not explained how these books constitute 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. While a recording appears to have accompanied one of the books, a compact 
Page 7 
disc is not an exhibition or showcase. Rather, in order for us to consider the compact disc, the petitioner would 
need to demonstrate sales numbers indicative of commercial success pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(x). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that his roles for various organizations were 
leading or critical. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal. While we concur with the director 
as discussed below, we also note the lack of evidence that most of the associations have a distinguished 
reputation nationally. 
The petitioner was appointed to the following positions in the following years: 
1. Senior Music Consultant for the Shanghai Dongfany Chinese Traditional Music 
Troupe in 1997, 
2. Standing Committee Member for the Professional Committee of Shanghai Music Saw 
Society in 1997, 
3. Editor of Alumni Communication published by the Shanghai Conservatory of Music 
Alumni Association at an unspecified time, 
4. Professional Student and Instructor of Chords for Shanghai Conservatory of Music 
between 1982 and 1 994, 
5. A member of the editorial committee for the Journal of Workers Music in 1985, 
6. Standing Director for the Handsaw Specialty Committee of the Shanghai Association 
of Musicians in 1997, 
7. Council member of the Shanghai Association of China Music Saw in 1997 and 
The record does not contain organizational charts or other evidence suggesting the nature of the above roles. 
Moreover, almost all of the associations appear to be local to the Shanghai area. The only exception are the 
appointments listed in numbers 5 and 7above. The record, however, contains no evidence of the number of 
editors or the nature of their responsibilities. Regardless, the appointment was in 1985, 12 years before the 
petitioner left China and filed the petition. Thus, it cannot serve as evidence of his sustained acclaim as of the 
date of filing. Finally, the record contains no evidence that Tokai Industries enjoys a distinguished reputation 
nationally or that serving as music director for a single project constitutes a leading or critical role. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a musician to 
such an extent that he 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 indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a 
musician, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in 
his field. While the evidence suggests that the petitioner enjoyed some national recognition prior to 1987, the 
evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner sustained any acclaim after that time. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.