dismissed EB-1A Case: Opera

MATTER OF R-Y-
( 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 15, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an opera singer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reopen. The motion to reopen will be denied. 
I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The classification which the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 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 require a one-time achievement or satisfaction of at least three of ten regulatory 
criteria. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner only articulated one criterion which he claimed to meet: the 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, 
we affirmed the Director's determination that the Petitioner had not satisfied the plain language of that 
one criterion. We also analyzed three other criteria which the Petitioner either asserted that he meets or 
for which he submitted potentially relevant and probative material. In our appeal decision, we found 
that the Petitioner had not s~tisfied the plain language of the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) or the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We found, 
however, that the Petitioner did meet the plain language of the display of his work criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
In January 2016, the Petitioner filed a motion to,reopen, including a letter from counsel. In his letter, 
counsel indicates that he was retained the week before and that, "[I] believe that within the next month 
or two, I would have marshalled clear and convincing evidence to establish that [the Petitioner] is 
qualified as an EB-1(1) alien of extraordinary ability." The Petitioner submitted his brief and 
supporting evidence on March 4, 2016. 
(b)(6)
Matter of R- Y-
II. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentation. 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2). However, any new facts must relate to the issue of eligibility at 
the tiine the Petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) provides that a motion "may be accompanied by a 
brief." However, unlike the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) governing appeals, which 
allows a petitioner, under limited circumstances , to supplement an appeal once filed, no similar 
provision applies to the filing of a motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii). Additionally , the 
instructions to the Form I-290B specifically state: "[N]o additional time will be permitted to submit 
supplementary arguments or evidence in support ,of a motion to reopen or reconsider after the Form 
I-290B has been filed." Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l), every benefit request 
must be executed and filed in accordance with form instructions which are incorporated into the 
regulation. 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in 
the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Motions for 
the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty , 
· 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a 
proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
In filing 
his motion, the Petitioner neither stated new facts nor provided affidavits. The Petitioner 
did, however, provide two testimonial letters which address the Petitioner's work in the field of 
operatic performance. 
In an undated letter, chairman of the board, states that the 
Petitioner won the 2014 competition and that he "is a young singer of great talent and 
promise" who has "potential to have a major international career." maintains that 
approving the petition would be a "wonderful opportunity for the US to foster a relationship with 
Kosovo by supporting the career of a promising young opera singer." We have already considered 
the 2014 award in our prior decision, under our analysis of the lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes criterion. While lauding the great potential which the Petitioner 
. has to be a benefit to the United States, neither specifically addresses any of the other 
regulatory criteria for the establishment of extraordinary ability nor provides any evidence related to 
those criteria. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from professor of voice, for the 
praises the Petitionerfor his abilities but his letter offers no 
2 
(b)(6)
~----
Matter of R-Y-
specific evidence related to any of the ten regulatory criteria which would go towards establishing 
the Petitioner's extraordinary ability in the field of operatic performance. states that 
the Petitioner is "prize-winning" but does not identify any prizes or awards won by the Petitioner. 
He maintains that the Petitioner "performed leading roles ... at the opera company in Kansas" but 
did not identify those roles. The letter from does not identify any awards or leading 
roles which we have not already considered in our previous decision. 
Solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or include specific examples of how 
those contributions influenced the field as a whole are insufficient to meet this criterion. 1 Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements offered as 
expert testimony. See Moper of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USC IS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive proof of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters with regard to whether they support the Petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 
795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Caron Int 'I, 19 
I&N Dec. at 795; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give 
minimal weight to solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on 
contributions of major significance in the field). 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner's motion did not meet the regulatory 
requirements of a motion to reopen and must, therefore, be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act. Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. For this reason, the 
motion to reopen is denied, and our previous decision and the decision of the Director remain 
undisturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofR-Y-, ID# 17215 (AAO July 15, 2016) 
1 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusions that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the sel'f­
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
3