dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 0 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announc e new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
�7� Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Subsequently, the 
petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion is granted and the petition remains 
denied. 
The petitioner, a musician and vocalist, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the 
arts, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to aliens can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner's evidence had met only the categories 
of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vii). 
On motion, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The submitted evidence includes 
documentation showing that the petitioner previously submitted a brief in support of his appeal. The 
petitioner asserts that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), and 
(viii). In addition, the petitioner contends that he has submitted comparable evidence of his 
eligibility pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(4). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for 
the exclusive 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 evidence that satisfies at least three 
of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim as of 2012 when he 
filed the petition, or even subsequently. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 hnmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy hnmigration and Naturalization Service 
(I NS) 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 1015 1 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (N ov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recogfiition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazar ian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(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. 20 11 ) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazar ian), 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 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 20 1 0) (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"). 
II. AN ALYSIS 
A Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted an August 24, 2012 letter from Mr. 
Officer, 
stating: 
Program 
.---- Pakistan, 
[The petitioner] was admitted to this college/university to 1st year class on the basis of 
music. As a member of the . he was called to act as secretary of the society for 
its working from 1980 to 1981. In order to serve as secretary of this prestigious music 
society we require an accomplished harmonium/keyboard player along with his singing 
ability so that he can deal with the other students members [sic] technically and 
grammatically who have an aptitude towards singing or instrument playing. In these early 
two years [the petitioner] performed and acted so well that he was called again to act as 
secretary of this renowned society in the session 1982-83. 
During his stay as a secretary he proved himself as an accomplished student of music not 
only in organizing the performances of the students but also enabling them to work as a team. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted information in the 
about the and their performances, but there is no documentary 
evidence of the society's specific membership requirements. Although Mr. described the 
position requirements for serving as secretary, he did not provide any evidence of the membership 
requirements of the society, and whether its membership is judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. Also, a position with an association is not a 
membership level in that association. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the 
requirements for serving as secretary of the : _ constitute outstanding 
achievements. The petitioner has not shown that being an accomplished harmonium/keyboard 
player and demonstrating ability as a singer in the student music program at equate to 
outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner submitted two articles dated March 5, 2004 in the 
(India) identifying him as a delegate of the Neither article provides 
information regarding the union's membership requirements. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the is an association with members that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as determined by recognized national or international 
experts in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a May 8, 2012 letter from . Program Manager, 
stating: "[ The petitioner] is 
associated with for the last 30 years as vocalist in category 'AA.' He sings light and 
semi-classical songs and possesses a melodious voice. During this period, we found him hard­
working, talented and committed to his work." In addition, the petitioner submitted a map showing 
the radio coverage areas and a webpage listing the chronological history of the and 
The submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner holds membership in 
the or that the corporation requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Submitting documentary 
evidence reflecting the petitioner's employment or involvement with a particular organization 
without evidence reflecting that the petitioner is a member of an association that requires outstanding 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, is 
insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner to show "membership in associations" rather than his employment or 
involvement with organizations or businesses. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a July 11, 1994 article in entitled 
• � 
_ ' " but did not identify the author of the material as 
required by this regulator criterion. In addition, the petitioner submitted a June 8, 1992 article in 
." The petitioner also - -
submitted a March article in entitled '' - - ' but the 
article is about Mr. and a program celebrating his work rather than the petitioner. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion, however, requires "published material about the alien. " Articles 
that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show 
are not about the actor). The petitioner's evidence also included webpages from _ 
• 
internet site stating that the publication is "the largest circulated newspaper of the region. " USCIS, 
however, need not rely on general self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). There are no 
objective circulation figures showing that _ is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a March · article in entitled l 
_ 
" but did not identify the author of the material. In addition, the article is about a student 
music oro�rram and not the oetitioner. The petitioner also submitted an April article in 
mentioning that the petitioner and eight other students 
participated in a "half an hour music program" which broadcasted. The 
aforementioned article, however, is about the radio program rather than the 
petitioner. The petitioner submitted another article in but did not 
identify its title, date, and author. Furthermore, the article is about and not the 
petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that is a 
professional or major trade publication or form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an April article in entitled 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a list of numerous 
news outlets posted on the "Raising Pakistan" online forum that includes There are no 
circulation figures showing the readership of relative to other news publications in Pakistan 
to demonstrate that the newspaper is a form of major media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a March : . article in _ entitled ' 
but did not identify the author of the material. In addition, the article is about a 
delegation from the and its visit to _ 
_ 
India. The article is not about the petitioner and only briefly identifies him 
among the eleven attending delegates. Furthermore, there is no circulation evidence showing that 
is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a Mard article in entitled ' 
' but the article is not about the petitioner. Rather, the article is about a peace 
In addition, outreach undertaken by members of the 
there is no documentary evidence showing that is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a January article in entitled that listed 
the petitioner among a number of students who worked "for the betterment of the _ m 
the session 1983-84." The article is about the _ and not the petitioner. In 
addition, there is no evidence showing that [s a professional or major trade publication or 
form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a jud ge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The evidence supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. For 
example, the petitioner judged music competitions of the 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e] vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance 
in the field." (Emphasis added.) Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original artistic 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2 "d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner points to the April article in entitled 
� 
as evidence that the petitioner meets this regulatory 
criterion. The article states: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
A cultural show was arranged at in the honor of a delegate from 
friendly neighbor country China. Hundreds of people witnessed the program. 
Several singers presented their songs. Later on a young singer was invited to amuse the 
audience with a _ song ' Chinese guests though could 
understand a little meaning via translation of the song but they enjoyed the tune and rhythm a 
lot. They were amused by the singing of the young singer. Name of this passionate amateur 
singer was [the petitioner]. He sings eagerly and looks familiar with the art of music. He 
was advised several times to become a professional singer but he refused and liked to be an 
amateur singer. Mter completing his education he plans to have a good job and continue 
singing as a part-time hobby. He has also got chances to sing outside Lahore and earned 
several certificates of appreciation. 
Two of his brothers also are keen in music. He has joined a group of non-professional 
singers consisting of some good veteran singers. This step has highlighted his capabilities of 
singing. Presently he is a student of B.Sc. final year. No ceremony of the college is held 
without his participation. Songs sung by him have become popular. He is well versant with 
the art of singing. He himself composed the music/tunes of several songs. He can rightly be 
called as the spirit of the college music society. 
The professional singers admit his potential and techniques of singing. . . . [The petitioner] 
disclosed that he has sung songs in several ceremonies during the last 8-10 ten years. He also 
sang a song in stage show and the audience applauded him a lot. In addition, 
he also performed in TV program ' ., He said that there are a lot of educated amateur 
singers. However, they should be provided chances to sing iri TV programs and in art 
councils. This will add up to melodious singing in addition to satisfying the amateur singers. 
Amateur singers of today might be the successful artists of singing in future providing 
rhythmic and melodious voice to the listeners. 
The article refers to the petitioner as a "passionate amateur singer" whose songs "have become 
popular," but does not establish that the petitioner's work was of major significance in the field. In 
addition, the article mentions that the petitioner has composed several songs, that professional 
singers have acknowledged his potential, that he sang in the stage show ' and that he 
performed for the television program. There is no documentary evidence showing, 
however, the extent of the petitioner's influence on other musicians in the field, or demonstrating 
that the field has specifically changed as a result of his original work, so as to establish the major 
significance of his contributions. Furthermore, the April 27, 1984 article in was 
previously addressed under the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Evidence relating to 
or even meeting the published material criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also 
meets this criterion absent evidence that the article is relevant to a determination of the major 
significance of the petitioner's contributions. The regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from 
one another. Because separate criteria exist for published material and original contributions of 
major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner also points to four letters of support discussing his talent as a musician and education, 
his involvement with , his work as a music coordinator for radio station and 
his other activities in the field. 
The petitioner submitted two letters dated October 19, 2012 from 
Pakistan. In his first letter, Mr. states: 
Secretary 
is working to preserve our cultural heritage and to salvage the dying embers of 
cultural lineage. 
It has sponsored many musical programmes full of vigor and enthusiasm and literary 
evenings since its inception in 1986. On its credit are music festival arranged in 1993, 1994, 
1995, 2001 and coronation of leading artists of the nation. 
Now _ _ is going to organize 4-day music festival on 6th November to 9th of 
November in which the leading instruments and vocalists of Pakistan will perform and 
enthrall the audience. 
Let me express that [the petitioner] is the founder member of and he is the part 
and parcel of our team. He is not only the excellent singer but also the music critic. He has 
done his master in Music from which is great honor for and 
it[ s] members. 
He had judged so many music shows organize[ d] by different other organizations and by 
as well. 
He can teach music as he delivered so many lectures and held workshop on music, organized 
by I , after leaving university. 
He [is] our asset and we say him ambassador of our music culture. 
Mr. mentions that the petitioner is a founding member of an excellent singer, 
and a music critic. In addition, Mr. comments that the petitioner received his master's 
degree in Music from , that the petitioner has judged music shows, that he has 
delivered lectures and held a music workshop, but does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has influenced the field of music at a level indicative of original contributions of 
major significance. The plain language of this criterion requires that the petitioner's contributions be 
"of major significance in the field" rather than limited to the organizations with which he is 
affiliated. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134 (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). 
In his second letter, Mr. states: "[ The petitioner] is the front-rank vocalist of Pakistan who 
can sing different genders of singing with ease and prowess. He is not only the melodious singer but 
also musicologist who has done [h ]is master in music from ' It is not enough, 
however, to be a talented singer and to have others attest to that talent. An individual must have 
demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. See id. There is no 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's songs have affected the music industry, have 
substantially influenced the work of other vocalists, or otherwise constitute original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The oetitioner also submitted a letter from 
Pakistan, stating: .__ _ .... 
Director of radio station 
This is to certify that [the petitioner] had been working with mast one of the most 
popular radio stations in Pakistan as a music coordinator since 2002 which is also remarked 
as the year in which this fine institute was established. [The petitioner] has been working 
with us as a Music coordinator. 
* * * 
I myself am a graduate from and hold a Master's Degree in 
Philosophy and Music. [The petitioner] arranged the music library and organized different 
workshops with RJs [Radio Jockeys]. He himself is a melodious singer and composer. He 
inducted new and creative ideas in music programs which helped greatly to promote the 
brand. 
[The petitioner] not only served mast but national Radio and Television as well. In 
various cultural shows [the petitioner] has promoted folk music of He was an asset 
not only to but to the Pakistan Music Industry. 
Ms. comments on the petitioner's work as a musk coordinator for and 
mentions that he arranged the station's music library, organized workshops with RJs, and introduced 
creative ideas in music programs, but she does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's 
original work has influenced the music industry or was otherwise of major significance in the field. 
Again, the plain language of this criterion requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to his employer. In addition, while Ms. asserts 
that the petitioner is a "melodious singer and composer," she does not identify specific examples of 
the petitioner's compositions or recordings that have influenced the field as a whole or otherwise 
constitute original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. Vague, solicited letters 
from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1122. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our 
conclusion that that petitioner did not meet the contributions criterion was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language. " 596 F. 3d at 11 22. Furthermore, USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated 
claims. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency 
need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). Ms. ! _ further 
states that the petitioner "promoted folk music of _ " served "national Radio and Television," 
and "was an asset ... to the Pakistan Music Industry." Ms. however, does not explain how 
the petitioner's work has affected the field of folk music and there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work was of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an April 17, 2013 letter from Mr. stating: 
fThe petitioner 1 who graduated from and served as secretary of 
was such a skilled person, that the moment he left the college, was 
offered by these above mentioned forums for public performance on media and stage. These 
performances not only gave him the public acknowledgement and popularity but also he 
became part and parcel of our public heritage in the musical arts regular programs on Radio, 
Television and Art Council. 
Based upon ... my knowledge and review of [the petitioner's] performances [and] his 
reputation, I can say without hesitation that [the petitioner] has risen to the very top of his 
field in the arts. There are very few artists of this caliber in Pakistan. 
Mr. points to the petitioner's music education and skills, but does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's original work was of major significance in the field. With regard to 
the petitioner's performances in the media and on stage, the regulations contain a separate criterion 
regarding commercial successes in the performing arts. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). As the petitioner's 
musical performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" 
criterion at 8 C. P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), they will be discussed separately within the context of that 
regulatory criterion. Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's performances 
have affected the field of music in a major way, have topped recording charts for a substantial period of 
time, or have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, Mr. asserts that the petitioner "has risen to the very top of his field in the arts, but 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner'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, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, 1997 WL 188942, *1, *5 (S.D. N. Y. 
Apr. 18, 1997). 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17. In addition, 
uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' 
decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of 
Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 19 88) (holding that an agency "may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way ' � 
questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. /d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially 
impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See 
Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 P.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOl, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004); Dar v. INS, 891 P.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence of his music performances as evidence for this 
criterion. The petitioner's work as a singer and musician is audible in nature and is enjoyed for its 
sound, not its visual aspects. Therefore, his music performances do not satisfy the regulatory 
requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(vii). The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[ e]vidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." (Emphasis added.) The petitioner is a musician. When he records a 
song or performs in concert, he is not displaying his music in the same sense that a painter or 
sculptor displays his or her work in a gallery or museum. The petitioner is performing his music, he 
is not displaying his work. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; 
not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
The interpretation that 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has 
been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe, 2: 07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *7 (upholding an 
interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5 (h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art 
that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, he has not submitted qualifying evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(vii). The 
petitioner's music performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the 
performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) and we will discuss them separately within 
the context of that regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted two letters dated October 19, 2012 from Mr. stating that the 
petitioner was a founding member of and that he participated as a judge of its music 
shows and competitions. Mr. does not explain the petitioner's duties and responsibilities as a 
founding member. In general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits 
within the hierarchy of an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by 
evidence of the petitioner's contributions to the organization or establishment. The petitioner did not 
provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where his roles as a founding 
member and music judge fit within the overall hierarchy of the association. The submitted evidence 
fails to demonstrate that the petitioner's specific duties and responsibilities were commensurate with 
performing in a leading role, and does not establish that he contributed to the organization in a way 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
that was significant to its success or standing. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence 
showing that has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an August 24, 2012 letter from Mr. stating that the petitioner served 
as a student member and secretary of the . and "proved himself 
as an accomplished student of music not only in organizing the performances of the students but also 
enabling them to work as a team." In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from the "Incharge" 
of the stating: "This is to certify that [the petitioner] worked as General Secretary of 
the during the session 1979-81." The letter from Mr. states that the petitioner 
"organized student performances" and enabled "them to work as a team," but does not specify any of 
the petitioner's other duties and responsibilities as General Secretary. If testimonial evidence lacks 
specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The petitioner also submitted a December 
21, 1989 article iD school newspaper providing information 
about the school's .. The article states that Mr. "was appointed as 
the musical instructor" of the society in 197 4 and that he provided "keen guidance and supervision" 
of the students. Although the submitted evidence shows that Mr. has performed in a leading 
and critical role for the society, the submitted documentation does not provide sufficient specificity 
or detail to demonstrate that the petitioner's role in helping Mr. organize student 
. performances was leading or critical. 
The etitioner submitted an additional article about the m 
but did not identify its title, date, and author. The article states that 
"the society won two gold medals, two shields and several certificates of appreciation" from 1982-
83 and lists the petitioner's name among nine of the society's "prominent singers." The article did 
not identify the organizations that presented the two gold medals, two shields, and certificates of 
appreciation. The self-promotional material in newspaper is not sufficient to demonstrate 
that the school's music society has a distinguished reputation beyond The petitioner also 
submitted an April 27, 2011 article in " entitled " 
' The article announces the concert and then briefly mentions the ,__ � _____ _j 
The _ has a long history of annual concerts. It was founded somewhere in 
the 1930s but with the name of ' " Later it was revived in the 1950s and 
renamed ' by Dr former college principal and professor of 
zoology. After his death in the late 1980s, it was renamed " 
The submitted information provides the history of the but it is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the society has earned a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted two articles dated March in the 
(India) identifying him as a delegation member of the The two articles 
entitled, ' ' identify 
the petitioner among eleven delegates art;..ic.;..i.r...;.;a.;.;;ting in a mission to encourage educational exchange 
between India. -
We note that the latter article states that is the "leader of the team." The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
petitioner did not provide evidence to establish where his role as a delegation member fit within the 
overall hierarchy of the The submitted documentation does not show 
that the petitioner's specific duties and responsibilities were commensurate with performing in a 
leading role, and does not establish that he contributed to the organization in a way that was 
significant to its success or standing. Furthermore, the articles focus on the exchange mission and are 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the l has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Ms. stating that the petitioner worked as a music 
coordinator for radio station, Ms. further states that the petitioner 
"arranged the music library and organized different workshops with RJs." The petitioner did not 
submit documentation to establish where his role as a music coordinator fit within the overall 
hierarchy of the radio station. The submitted evidence fails to demonstrate that the petitioner's 
specific duties and responsibilities were commensurate with performing in a leading role, and does 
not establish that he contributed to the station in a way that was significant to its success or standing. 
In addition, while Ms. _ asserts that radio station "is one of the largest radio 
networks of Pakistan" and that the station received a " " in 20 10 and 20 11 , 
there is no documentary evidence to support her claims. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sotfici, 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)). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
-
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his music performances which fall under this regulatory 
criterion. For example, the petitioner submitted a May 28, 2012 letter from 
Executive Programs Manager, 
_ 
stating that 
the petitioner has performed in "regional language and network programs on [a] contractual basis." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an August 1, 2012 letter from the Deputy Director of the 
1 stating that the petitioner "participated in numerous musical programmes arranged by 
this institution as well as by other private organizations." This regulatory criterion, however, 
focuses on volume of sales and receipts as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the 
performing arts. Therefore, the fact that a petitioner has recorded music or performed before an 
audience is insufficient, in and of itself, to meet this criterion. The evidence must show that the 
volume of sales or receipts reflect the petitioner's commercial success relative to others involved in 
similar pursuits in the performing arts. The petitioner, however, failed to submit documentary 
evidence of "sales" or "receipts" demonstrating that his specific song compositions and music 
performances were indicative of his commercial successes in the performing arts. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summ ary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
In the appeal brief, the petitioner requests that the documentation submitted for the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) be considered as comparable evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P. R. § 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner states: "The Decision stated that Mr. 
has not met this criteria [sic]. It requested contracts with companies, licensed technology or patents. 
Please note that such do not apply to [the petitioner] since he was not provided these nor required to 
have these under the Pakistani norm for musical artists." 
The director's request for evidence under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
criterion, however, was not limited only to "contracts with companies, licensed technology or 
patents." For example, the director prov-ided suggestions for various other types of evidence that the 
petitioner may submit, including, but not limited to: 
• Documentary evidence that people throughout the field currently consider the petitioner's 
work to be important; 
• Evidence that the petitioner's major, significant contributions have provoked widespread 
public commentary in the field; 
• Objective documentary evidence of the significance of the petitioner's contributions to 
the field; and 
• Evidence of the petitioner's work being implemented by others. 
The regulation at 8 C. P.R . § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if 
the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.P. R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily 
applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the specific objective 
evidence required at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
The petitioner points to comments in the April 17, 2013 letter from Mr. as evidence that the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(v) does not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. 
Mr. states: 
Pakistan is a developing country that is why all the institutions here are in a developing stage. 
Obviously the conditions and the format which we have, cannot be compared with the 
developed world like Europe and USA. Particularly the disciplines of performing art are in a 
tender age of development and various religious and conservative elements of social norms 
are hindering in its rapid upbringing. 
The professional forums of performance display are under the governmental control and 
these are Radio, Television and Art Councils. All of these three forums are placed in the 
Provincial Capital of Pakistan. These forums provide opportunity of performance to an artist 
who has skill, public following and fan following whether he is a singer, play actor, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
comed ian or compere . An y one of these artists who appears on Nati onal Rad io, Tel evision 
or at the Art Council plat form is engaged by a contract verbal ly or writt en and paid as a 
professional by these esta bl ishments. Thus, in order to pe rform at these prest igious venues, 
one has to have a solid reputation as a fam ous and well -recognized perf ormer with a [si c] 
sign ificant achie vem ents . 
All of these forums start engaging these artists in many programs acc ording to their 
categories and this is how an artist in Pakistan becomes an asset of heritage . This medium 
takes him to a public accl amation. These media performances may be called as an evidenc e 
of his record of public fo ll owing. 
Mr. asserts that Pakis tan is a developin g country, that the performing arts there are hindered 
by religi ous and conser vativ e ele ment s of social norms, and that the governm ent controls 
performa nce fo rums. These fa ctors, however, do not establish that the original contrib ution s 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3)(v) does not readily ap ply to Pakistani performing artists. There is no 
persuasive evidence showing that Pakistani performing artists are unab le to demo nstrate origina l art istic 
contrib utions of ma jo r signif icance in the field. Where a pet itioner is simply unab le to sat isfy the 
pla in la nguage requirements of at least three categories of evidenc e at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3), the 
regula tion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(4) does not allow fo r the submis sion of com parab le evidenc e. The 
regul atory la nguage precl udes the consideration of comp arab le evidenc e in this case, as there is no 
indicat ion that el igibility for visa preference in the petitioner 's occup ation cannot be estab li shed by 
the ten criteria specif ied by the regula tion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3). 
Had the petitioner demo nstrated that he was elig ible for the provisio ns of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5 (h)( 4 ), whic h he ha s not, the pet itioner has not established that the April 27, 19 84 article in 
and the information provided in the four lett ers of support he submi tted are comparab le 
to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5 (h)(3)(v) that requires "original scient ific, scholarl y, artistic, 
athlet ic, or busines s-related contributions of ma jor signif icance in the field" or is ot herwis e 
prob ative. The peti tioner has not explained how the eviden ce he claims as compa rable to the 
regula tion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3)( v) is of the same caliber as that required by the reg ula tion. 
In addition, the petitioner requests consideration of the following doc ume nts as com parab le evide nce 
of his extr aordina ry ability: 
1. A certificate from 
Paki stan 
audit orium on April 
'· 
Deputy Director, 
2. The two le tters dated October 19, 20 12 from Mr. stating that the pe tition er was a 
fo unding member of and that he participat ed as a judge of its music shows and 
co mpetit ions; 
3. The pe titio ner's Ma ster of Arts degree in Mu sic from the :20 08); 
4. A Ja nuary 4, 19 85 article in entitled that lis ted the 
petitioner among a number of students who worked "for the better me nt of the 
in the session 19 83 -84"; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DE CISION 
Page 16 
5. An April article in 
_ 
stati ng that the petitioner and 
eight other student s par ticipa ted m a "half an hour music program" that was 
broadcasted by ,, 
6. A Ma rch article in entitle d that is 
abo ut Mr. , and an arts program celebrating his work; 
7. An August 10, 1985 let ter from the request ing that the 
petiti oner perform at its 108 1h meetin g on August 
8. A Fe bruary 2008 Certifica te of Appreciation stating that the pe tition er "was a memb er of 
the conti ngent of Pakistan which participated in · 
'; and 
9. A com pact dis c of the petit ioner 's mu sic. 
Again, the petit ioner has not demon strated that the regula tory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3) are not 
readily ap plic able to his occupation. The submitted evide nce shows that mul tiple categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3) readily ap ply to performing artists. Furthermore, the petiti oner has 
not explained how items 1 through 9 are "compa rable" to the specific obje ct ive evid ence required at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(i) - (x). In this instance, items 1, 2, 5, and 7- 9 are relev ant to the com mercial 
successes in the performin g arts criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5( h)(3)(x). In add ition, item 2 is rele vant 
to the judge of the work of others criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(iv), wh ich the pet itioner has met, 
and the le ading or critic al role criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5 (h)(3)( viii). Further, items 4 - 6 are 
relevant to the published material about the alien criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(i ii). Moreover, the 
submitted eviden ce has already been cons idered under those four regul atory criteria and was fo und 
insufficient to meet them. Lastly, with regard to item 3, the petitioner has not demon strated that 
meeting the aca demic requirements for earning a degree in on e's field is evidence of ex traordinary 
abi li ty. In a precedent decision involving a lesser class ification than the one sought in this ma tter, we 
have held that acad emic performance, mea sured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a 
specifi c prior ach ievement that esta blis hes the alie n's ab ilit y to ben efit the na tional interest. In re 
New York State Dep 't of Transp, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 19 98). Thus, 
acade mic perform anc e is certainly not comparab le to sustained national or international accl aim and 
ach ievements that have been recognized in the field as set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5 (h)(3), de sign ed to demonst rate eligib ilit y for this more exc lusiv e classif ication. 
III. CONCL USION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ab ilit y must clea rly demon strate 
that the alien has achieved sustained nati onal or international acclaim and is one of the sma l l percen tage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the peti tioner subm itted the requisite evi dence under at least three evi dentiary categ ories, in 
accordance wit h the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merit s det erm ina tion that 
con siders all of the evi dence in the context of wh ether or not the pe titio ner has dem onstrat ed: (1) a 
"level of expertise indi cating that the individ ual is one of that small percenta ge who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endea vor," and (2) "that the alien has susta ined nati onal or international 
acc laim and tha t his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of exper tis e." 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204 .5 (h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119 -20. As the peti tioner has not don e so, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5 (h)(3) 
and (4). Kazari an, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazari an, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. 2 For example, much of the evidence relates to the 1980s and the petitioner's most recent 
accomplishment is a performance at a community center in 2011, which is not consistent with 
sustained acclaim. 
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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The petition remains denied . 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 P.3d at 145. In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 
C.P.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).