dismissed EB-1A Case: Music Composition

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationservices
. AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
identifying data deleted to 20 MassachusettsAve., N.W., MS2090
preVentClearlyllnWalTanted Washington,DC20529-2090
inVasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration
PUBLICCOPY Services
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICECENTER FILE:
JUL112012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of S630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant
visapetitionon January6, 2011. Thepetitioner,who is alsothebeneficiary,appealedthedecision
with theAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onFebruary8,2011. Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an "alien of extraordinaryability" in the field of music
composition,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (the Act),
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determinedthat the petitioner has not establishedthe
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto qualify for classificationas an alien of
extraordinaryability.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's "sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection§ 203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act; 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednational or internationalacclaim through evidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).The
petitionermustsubmitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof
evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief anda numberof documents,most of which were previously
submittedto thedirector. In hisbrief filed in supportof theappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitioner
meetsthe nationally or internationallyrecognizedprizes or awardscriterion under 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the participationasajudgecriterionunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),theoriginal
contributionsof major significancecriterion under8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v),and the display at
artisticexhibitionsor showcasescriterion under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Counselalsoclaims
thatthepetitionerhasprovidedcomparableevidenceto establishhiseligibility for thepetitionunder
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4).
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedhiseligibility
for the exclusiveclassificationsought. Specifically,the AAO finds that the petitionerhasnot
submittedqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycriteria set forth in the
regulationsat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such,the AAO finds that the petitionerhasnot
demonstratedthatheis oneof thesmallpercentagewho areat thevery top of thefield andhehas
notsustainednationalor internationalacclaim. See8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly,the
AAO mustdismissthepetitioner'sappeal.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
1. Priority workers.- Visasshall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrants
whoarealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
Page3
(A)Aliens with extraordinaryability. - An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athletics which has been demonstratedby sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeen
recognizedin thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto enterthe UnitedStatesto continuework in thearea
of extraordinaryability, and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and
NaturalizationService(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high
standardfor individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723
101stCong.,2d Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov. 29, 1991). The term
"extraordinaryability" refersonly to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
verytopof thefieldof endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat thepetitionerdemonstratethealien's sustained
acclaim and the recognitionof his or his achievementsin the field. Such acclaim must be
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,that is a major, internationally
recognizedaward,or throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
categoriesof evidencelistedundertheregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit reviewedthedenialof apetitionfiled under
this classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596 F.3d 1115(9th Cir. 2010). Althoughthe courtupheld
the AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluationof the
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCIS may have raised legitimate
concernsaboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcerns
shouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Kazarian,596 F.3dat 1121-
22.
Thecourtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspart of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat "the
proper procedureis to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailed to submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
1 Specifically, the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterally irnposednovel substantiveor evidentiary requirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi).
Page4
to satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Kazarian,
596F.3dat 1122(citing to 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin the contextof a final meritsdetermination.In this case,the AAO concurswith the
director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedentregulatory requirement of
presentingthreetypesof evidenceundertheregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x),andhasnot
demonstratedthat he is one of the small percentagewho are at the very top of the field or has
achievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaim.See8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2),(3).
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),the petitionercan establishsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimand that his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of endeavorby
presentingevidenceof a one-timeachievementthat is a major, internationally recognizedaward. In
this case,thepetitionerhasnot assertedor shownthroughhis evidencethathe is the recipientof a
major,internationallyrecognizedawardat a level similar to thatof the Nobel Prize. As such,the
petitioner must presentat leastthreeof the ten types of evidenceunder the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)to meetthebasiceligibility requirements.
Documentationof thealien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitionermeetsthiscriterionbecause"thepetitionerhasreceived
manyoutstandingawards."Specifically,counselreferencesthefollowing achievements:
2 The petitioner doesnot claim that the petitioner meetsthe regulatory categoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
Basedon the evidencein the record,the AAO concurswith the director's finding that the petitioner
hasnot met this criterion. First, the April 21, 2010 letter from
The petitionerhasnot providedsufficient evidenceto show that an awardselectedby students
constitutesa nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor excellence.Moreover,asthe
petitioner was selectedto be a "runner-up," the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner has
receivedanawardor prize for excellence,let alonea nationallyor internationallyrecognizedaward
or prize.
Second,althoughthe petitioner has submitteda September17, 2009 letter from ASCAPLUS,
indicatingthathewasawarded$250,hehassubmittedinsufficientevidenceshowingthattheaward
constitutesa nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardor prizefor excellence.Specifically,the
petitionerhasnot providedanyevidenceon how manypeoplewereeligibleto applyfor theaward,
howmanypeopleappliedor howmanypeopleultimatelywereselectedfor theawardin 2009. The
recordis alsodevoidof evidencerelatingto the nominationor selectionprocessof the awardin
2009. Moreover,the AAO will not assignweight to informationfrom a wikipedia.comarticle,
entitled"American Societyof Composers,Authors and Publishers," (ASCAP), as thereare no
assurancesaboutthe reliability of the contentfrom wikipedia.com,an open,user-editedinternet
site.' SeeBadasav.Mukasey,540F.3d909,910-11(8th Cir. 2008). Ultimately,thepetitionerhas
notdemonstratedthattheawardis recognizedbeyondtheorganizationthatissuesit, suchasbut not
limitedto mediacoverageof theawardselections.
Third, althoughthe petitionerhasprovidedsomeevidenceindicatingthat he is the winner of a
compositionfellowshipin the hehasnotprovidedanyprimary
evidenceof theaward,suchasa copyo t e awar or t e etterto thepetitionerregardingwinning
theaward. As notedin the director'sJanuary6, 2011decision,the petitionerhasnot submitteda
Onlinecontentfrom Wikipediais subjectto the following generaldisclaimerentitled"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY":
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary
associationof individuals and groups working to develop a common resourceof
human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet
connection to alter its content. Pleasebe advised that nothing found here has
necessarilybeenreviewedby peoplewith the expertiserequiredto provide you with
complete,accurateor reliableinformation.
. . Wikipedia cannotguaranteethe validity of the information found here. The
contentof any given article may recently havebeenchanged,vandalizedor altered
by someonewhoseopinion doesnot correspondwith the stateof knowledgein the
relevantfields. . .
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer,accessedon June 19, 2012, a copy of which is
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.
trophy,plaqueor certificatecorroboratinghis receiptof the award. The non-existenceor other
unavailabilityof requiredevidencecreatesapresumptionof ineligibility. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2).
Fourth
that the petitionerwasthe , the petitionerhasnot providedany
primaryevidenceof theaward,i.e.,a copyof theaward,aphotographof thetrophyor plaque,or the
letterto the petitionerregardingwinning the award. The non-existenceor otherunavailabilityof
requiredevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Moreover,
although , thefoundingdirectorof the Festivalstatedin hisJune
15,2010letterthatthe "festival hasservedasa podiumo is mcion or distinguishedperformers
andcomposersfrom throughoutthe world, andwinnersof [the] compositioncompetitionsarethe
most accomplishedand recognizedof composers,"neither the letter, nor any other evidencein the
record,providesinformationrelatingto the nominationor selectionprocessof the award,or the
percentageof the festival participantswho win an award. The recordalsolacksevidenceof any
recognitionbeyondtheawardingauthority,suchasbut not limited to mediacoverageof theaward
selections. The evidenceis thus insufficient to show that the awardconstitutesa nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedawardor prizefor excellence.
Fifth, although the petitioner has submitted an August 2, 2010 online printout from
leonardromsteinc
constitutesa nationally or internationallyrecognizedaward or prize awards for excellence.
Accordingto thedocument,thefellowshipwasawardedto thepetitionerandothers"to helpyoung
artistsobtainaneducation,"notasarecognitionof theawardees'excellencein thefield of endeavor,
as requiredunderthe plain languageof the criterion. Moreover,the petitionerhasprovidedno
evidenceon thenominationor selection rocessof theaward. Furthermore,althoughthepetitioner
haspresentedan online printout on composerwho in 2008 was also awardeda
fellowshipby tl ü thisevidencedoesnotestablishthatthefellowship
constitutesa nationalor internationallyrecognizedawardor prizefor excellence.Rather,it shows
theaccomplishmentsof , whichmayor maynot haveanythingto dowith herreceiving
thefellowshipin 2008.
Sixth,on appeal,thepetitionerhassubmittedan uncertifiedtranslationof the awardcertificatefor
The documentis
insufficient,however,to showthat the awardconstitutesa natïonalor internationallyrecognized
award. Initially, theAAO findsthattheawardcertificatehasnot beenproperlytranslatedaccording
to theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),whichprovidesthat"[a]ny documentcontainingforeign
languagesubmittedto USCISshallbeaccompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhich the
translatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis
competentto translatefrom theforeignlanguageinto English." Onappeal,thetranslationprovided
for the awardcertificatelacks informationon the identity or competencyof the translator,or a
certificationthatthetranslationis completeandaccurate.TheAAO notesthatthesametranslation
Page7
wassubmittedwhenthepetitionerinitially filed hispetitionin August2010. Includedin theAugust
2010 submissionwas a Certificateof Accuracy,datedJuly 20, 2010, which indicatesthat the
translatorwas This certificate, however,does not list the Chinesedocument(s)
translatedby thetranslator.This certificatealsodoesnot accompanythetranslationfiled onappeal.
As such,the AAO finds that the Certificateof Accuracyis insufficient to show that the award
certificatewastranslatedpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Moreover,similarto
thepetitioner'sevidencerelatingto hisotherawards,theevidencerelatingto the
fails to includeinformationon thenominationor selectionprocessfor the
awardin 2008. Therecordalsolacksevidenceof anyrecognitionof the awardbeyondtheissuing
authority,suchasbut not limitedto mediacoverageof theawardselections.
Thepetitionerhasalsosubmittedotherevidenceto supporthisassertionthathemeetsthiscriterion.
The evidenceincludes:(1) the petitioner'scurriculumvitae, (2) a September10, 2010letterfrom
ASCAP,(3) uncertifiedtranslationsof awardspresentedb the CentralConservato of Music in
Bei'' China, (4) a January24, 2011 email from
and (5) an o ne prmtou en , e
InternationalMusicPrizefor Excellencem omposition2010."
TheAAO findsthatthesedocuments,andotherdocumentsin therecord,areinsufficientto establish
thatthepetitionerhasmetthis criterion. First,theAAO concurswith thedirector'sfinding thatany
awardsor prizeswonafterthepetitionerfiled thepetitionin August2010is notconsideredevidence
in supportof thepetition. It is well establishedthatthepetitionermustdemonstrateeligibility for the
petitionatthetimeof filing. See8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Second,the foreignlanguagedocumentationof awardsandprizesthe
petitionerreceivedin Chinasubmittedfor thefirst time on appealhavenot beentranslatedpursuant
to theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Specifically,thetranslationssubmittedon appealarenot
certifiedandthepreviouslysubmittedcertificateof accuracydoesnot relateto them. As such,the
AAO cannotafford themanyevidentiaryweight. Third, althoughthe petitioner'scurriculumvitae
and' ' list a numberof
the petitioner'sawardsandprizesnot discussedabove,similar to the awardsandprizesdiscussed
above,the evidencein the recordfails to showthat the awardsor prizesconstitutenationallyor
internationallyrecognizedawardsor prizes of excellence. Specifically, the petitioner has not
submittedevidence(suchasofficial results)showingthe numberof participantsin the contestsin
which he receivedawards,the standingor recognitionof the otherparticipantsin the contest,the
awards'nominationor selectionprocess,or any otherindicationthat the awardsarenationallyor
internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein thefield of musiccomposition,includingbut not
limitedto mediacoverageof theevents.
Accordingly, basedon the petitioner's evidence,the AAO finds that he has not presented
documentationof his receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor
excellencein the field of endeavor. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i).
Page8
Evidenceof thealien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of
othersin thesameor an alliedfield of specificationfor whichclassificationis sought. 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv).
On appeal,for the first time, counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthe participationasa ' e
criterion. As supportingevidence,thepetitionerhasprovideda January30, 2011letterfrom
andan associateprofessoremeritusat the
Accordingto thepetitioner"wasselectedanddid serveasoneof thefinal
four judges for the The letter further
providesthat "the adjudicationprocesstook placeduringthe monthof April 2010." Althoughthe
petitionerhasprovidedno explanationasto hisfailureto raisethis issuebeforetheappeal,basedon
the evidencesubmittedon appeal,the AAO concludesthat the petitionerhasmet this criterion.
See8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).
On appeal,counselassertsthatthepetitionermeetsthis criterion,because"[t]he petitioner'smusic
compositionwere [sic] performedby world renownedartistsat famousconcerthalls and music
eventsandcollaborationwith well[-]known musicians,"and"[t]he petitioner'smusiccompositions
werecommissionedby well[-]known organizationsandartistsandperformedby world renowned
artists The petitioner has provided a number of supportingdocuments,including (1) his
curriculum vitae, an online document entitled
' ) emailcorrespondencein January2011between
andthe petitioner,(4) a February3, 2011email from
anassistantprofessorand
(5) copiesof performanceprogramsand/orfbersof thepetitioners work, (6)
an undateddescriptionof the TanglewoodMusic Centerwhere"young musicianscometo study,
perform and create [music]," (7) an undateddocument,entitled "Thoughts from the Artistic
Director,"(8) a February2, 2006
Page9
, asAcclaimedOrchestraPerformshis Work," (9) an incomplete
copy of a document entitled (10) 2010 online printouts from
thebarnettfoundation.org,(11) an October2010 letter from (12)
documentsrelating to OrpheusChamberOrchestra'sProject 440, indicating that the petitioner was
oneof thirty composersselectedto advanceto thesecondround,and(13) anonlinebiographyfrom
uchicago.eduof thepetitioner'sstudent.
The petitionerhasalsoprovideda numberof referenceletter includin a July 7, 2010letter
from a professorof at the a June30, 2010
letterfrom a professorat the
, 3 a Ma 31, 2010letterfrom a pro essoro musican umamiesat
the (4) a June 28, etter from a professorat the
d
classicalmusiccorresondentof NationalPublicRadio's to ram"FreshAir," (7) a June12,2010
letterfrom an assistant rofessorof
(8) a June27, 2010letterfrom , anassociateprofessorof
(9) a June18,2010letter from a classicalChmesemusician,
(10)a June15,2010letterfro
) a July 7, 2010 letter from
(12)aJuly 7, 2010letterfrom an
assistantprofessorof
(13)a July 3, 2010letter om
(14)a July 15,2010letterfrom
and an October10, tter rom
a composerand
Basedon the evidencein the record,the AAO finds that the petitioner hasnot shownthat he meets
this criterion. First, although the evidence shows that the etitioner's co ositions have been
erformedb musiciansand/ororchestras,includingthe
, thepetitionerhasnot provided
any independentand objective evidenceindicating how theseperformancesestablishthat his
compositionsconstitutecontributionsof majorsignificancein the field of musiccomposition.The
fact thatthepetitioneris ableto composecompositionsthatorchestrasfind worth performingdoes
notdemonstratehisimpactonthefield of musiccomposition.
Second,althoughthe petitionerhaspresentedevidencethat organizations,sucha
have commissionedhim to composemusic, he has not shown that the resultingcompositions
constitutecontributionsof major significance. Again, the petitioner'sevidenceshowsthat his
compositionwasperformedby othermusicians,but asdiscussed,this aloneis insufficientto show
that his work constitutescontributionsof major significance,asall compositionsaremeantto be
performedby musicians.In otherwords,a composermustsuccessfullysecureperformancesof his
compositionsin order to make a living in that occupation;not every compositionacceptedfor
performanceis acontributionof majorsignificance.
MThird,althoughcounselassertsonappealthatthepetitioner'swork will beperformedby the
. "one of the WesternHemisphere'sfinest chamberensembles."in 2011an us
musicwill beperformedin March2011at the theAAO will not consider
this evidence,or anyotherevidencerelatingto t e petitioners accompishmentsafterAugust2010,
whenhefiled thepetition. As notedabove,it is well establishedthatthepetitionermustdemonstrate
eligibility for the petition at the time of filing. See8 C.ER. §§ 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of
Katigbak,14I&N Dec.at49.
Fourth,the referenceletterssubmittedon thepetitioner'sbehalfalsofail to showthatthepetitioner
meetsthis criterion. statedin her letter that the petitioner "is one of the most
extraordinary,naturallygiftedcomposers[shehas)comeacrossin recentyears"andthatshe"rate[s
thepetitioner]in the top 5% of composersof his generationin contemporaryWesternandEastern
fusionmusic." Theseboardstatements,however,arenot supportedby the informationprovidedin
the letter. Specifically,although 3raisedthe petitioner'stalentandquality of work,
she did not comparethe petitioner'swork to any other composer'swork or explain how the
petitioner'swork has influencedand i actedother composers.As such,the AAO is without
sufficientevidenceto conclude,as did, thatthepetitioneris "mostextraordinary"or is
in "thetop 5%of composers."Moreover,theletterdoesnot specificallystateor providesupportfor
the AAO to find that any of the petitioner's compositionconstitutescontributionsof major
significancein the field of musiccomposition. Finally, speculationor prediction
that the petitioner,"[f]illed with talent,motivation andcharisma,[] is someonewho shorddgo very
far" in themusicworld, is insufficientto showthatthepetitioner'swork constitutescontributionsof
majorsignificancein thefield of musiccomposition.(Emphasisadded.)
3raisedthepetitionerin herletter,statingthatthepetitioner"hasgrownto [be] oneof the
best composerstodayin theworld" andhis"musichasbeenperformedby thefinestmusicians
andorchestrasin the world." letter, however,doesnot specificallyprovide that the
petitioner'swork constitutescontributionsof major significancein the field of musiccomposition.
In addition,it is unclearfrom this letter,andotherevidencein therecord,howfrequentlymusicians
and/ororchestrasshouldperforma composer'swork for it to constitutemajor significancein the
field, and whetherthe performancefrequencyof the petitioner'swork fits within theserelevant
parameters.Moreover, concludedher letter with the speculationor predictionthat "[the
petitioner's]musicalart will contributemoreandmoreto the AmericanContemporarymusicand
culture." (Emphasisadded.)Predictionor speculationof thepetitioner'sfuturesuccessor potential
contributions is insufficient to establishhis current work constitutescontributionsof major
significance.
Page11
Thepetitioner'sotherreferencesalsopraisedhis talentandwork. For example
whois thepetitioner's"mentorandprofessionalcolleague,"statedin herletterthatthepetitioner"is
definitelyoneof thebestcomposersof thecontemporaryEastern-Westernfusionmusicin theU.S.,
if nottheworld" andthatthepetitioner"hasgrownto [be]oneof thebest composerstodayin
theworld" - a verbatimstatement,includingthetypographicerror,madein letter. Both
and madethe virtually verbatimstatementin their lettersthat the
petitioner"is amongthe top US-basedcomposers(top5% in theUS)whosemusicis deeplyrooted
in the musictraditionsof the Eastandthe West,aswell asthe contemporaryfusingof the two."
statedin his letterthatthepetitioner"is in a smallgroup(thetop 5%)of all composers
in terms of his skill, poetry and point of view. statedin his letter that he
"become[s}increasinglyimpressedby [the petitioner's]technicalmastery,emotionalhonestyand
complexity,andhis high artisticlevel." statedthatthepetitioner"is oftenlistedin
groupsof up andcomingcomposersto keepan eye on." statedin his letter that the
petitioner"is truly a rising musicalstarin the U.S." statedin his letter that the
petitioner'smusicis "deeplyrootedin themusicaltraditionsof boththeEastandtheWest,andmost
remarkabl, revealsa truly unique and contemporaryfusing of those two traditions."
statedin his letter that the petitioner "is an extremelyhard-working and talented
composer,rakingamongstthe top composersin today's contemporarymusic scene." While
expressespleasurethat the petitioneris teachingandconcludesthat "young composers
will learn his techniquesand be openedup to new ideasof music-makingin today's globally-
orientedsociety,"heprovidesno specificexamplesof how thepetitionerhasalreadyimpactedthe
field of musiccomposition.
speculatedin his letter that the petitioner's"work on the fusion of Chineseand
Westernmusicwill bea valuablecontributionto a field of growinginterest." statedin
his letterthatthepetitioner"hasalreadybelongedto the top (5%)co oserso is enerationthat
createscontemporaryfusionmusicof the Westernandthe Eastern." stated
thatthepetitioner"hasrisento theverytop of the field asa oun andremarkablecomposerin the
internationalsceneof contemporarymusic." speculatedin his letter that the
petitioner is "an outstandinglytalentedyoung man who has the gifts to make a formidable
contributionto themusicallift of theUSA."
TheAAO hasreviewedthereferencelettersandotherevidencein therecordclosely,andconcludes
thatthepetitionerhasnot shownhiswork constitutescontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield
of musiccomposition.Althoughthereferencespraisethepetitioner,manyclaimingthepetitionerto
be in the top 5% of the field, merelyrepeatingthe languageof the statuteor regulationsdoesnot
satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108
(E.D.N.Y.1989),aff'd, 905F. 2d41(2dCir. 1990);AvyrAssociates,Inc. v.Meissner,No.95Civ.
10729,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly,USCISneednot accept
primarily conclusoryassertions.1756,Inc. v. TheAttorneyGeneralof the UnitedStates,745F.
Supp.9, 15(D.C. Dist. 1990). TheAAO finds thatthe references'opinionof the petitioneris not
supportedby any objectiveandindependentevidencein the record. Moreover,the referencesdid
not discusshow thepetitioner'swork hasimpactedothercomposers.As such,theAAO concludes
Page12
thatthereferenceshavenotprovidedsufficientsupportfor aconclusionthatthepetitionerhasmade
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Accordingly,basedon thepetitioner'sevidence,theAAO finds thathehasnot presentedevidence
of his original scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significancein the field of musiccomposition. The petitionerhasnot met this criterion. See8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v).
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases.
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
On appeal,counselstatedthat "[t]he [d]irector is incorrectto contendthat the evidencedoesnot
meetthiscriterion"andpresentstwopagesof argumentsontheissue.In fact,in herJanuary6,2011
decision,the directorfound that basedon the evidencein the record,the petitionerhasmet this
criterion. The AAO concurswith the director's finding. In short, the petitioner has met this
criterion.See8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
If the abovestandardsdo not readily apply to the beneficiary'soccupation,thepetitionermay
submitcomparableevidenceto establishthebeneficiary'seligibility. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4).
On appeal,counselassertsthatthe referencelettersconstitutecomparableevidencedemonstrating
thepetitioner'seligibility for thepetition. Basedonthe evidencein therecord,theAAO concludes
thatthepetitionerhasnotshownthatthetencategoriesof evidenceundertheregulationsat8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)do not readily apply to the petitioner's occupationas a music composer.
Specifically,counselassertsonpage12of theappellatebrief that"only 3" of theregulatorycriteria
are readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation,presumablythe awards criterion, the
contributionscriterionandthedisplaycriterionaddressedonearlierpagesof thebrief. Counselgoes
on, however,to claimon page16thatthepetitioneralsomeetsthejudgingcriterion. Thus,counsel
appearsto concedethat at least four criteria apply to the petitioner's occupationand has not
establishedwhy noneof theothercriteria apply.
Indeed,the AAO finds that the petitionermeetsthe participationas a judge criterion underthe
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),andconcurswith the director'sfinding that the petitioner
meetsthe displayat artistic exhibitionsor showcasescriterion underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§
204.5(h)(3)(vii). Moreover,counselhasnot explainedhow the necessarilysubjectivelettersare
comparableto anyof theevidentiarycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)and,asdiscussed,theAAO
hasconsideredall the evidencein therecord,includingthe referencelettersunderthe criteriathey
address.Accordingly,undertheplain languageof theregulation,thepetitionerhasnot shownthat
hemaysubmitor hassubmittedcomparableevidenceto showeligibility for thepetition.
Page13
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
that the alien has achievedsustainednational or internationalacclaimand is one of the small
percentagewhphaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidenceunder at least three evidentiary categories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next stepwould be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the field of endeavor,"and (2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.WhiletheAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageat thevery top
of thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusion
in a final meritsdetermination.5Rather,the properconclusionis that the petitionerhasfailed to
satisfy the antecedentregulatoryrequirementof presentingthree types of evidence. Kazarian,
596F.3dat 1122.
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act and the
petition may not beapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthat burden. Accordingly, the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
The AAO maintainsde novo review of all questionsof fact andlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145(3d Cir.
2004). In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdiction to conducta final merits determinationastheoffice
thatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii);seealsoINA §§ 103(a)(1),204(b);DHSDelegation
Number0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof Aurelio,
19 MN Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacyINS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with thejurisdiction to
decidevisapetitions).