dismissed EB-1A Case: Opera Singer

MATTER OF R-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 23,2015 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 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)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements of either 1) a one­
time major achievement, or 2) documentation that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. For the reasons 
discussed below, the appeal will be dismissed. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-Y-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he 
must provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of the initial evidentiary requirements does not, however, in and of itself establish 
eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing 
a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of 
criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. 
Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) 
proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 
3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that we examine "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. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not provide a one-time achievement or documentation 
satisfying at least three of the ten evidentiary categories listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Below 
we will address four criteria the Petitioner either asserts he meets or for which he has submitted 
potentially relevant and probative material.
1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he received the following prizes or awards: 
• 
1 Prior to this appeal , the Petitioner did not indicate that he met specific criteria. On appeal, he states that he has offered 
evidence of his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, display of his work at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases, and performing in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation . 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-Y-
• 
• • 
The Director acknowledged these awards, but noted that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to show 
they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of endeavor. Although some 
of the competition names include the word "nationwide" or "international," these titles alone are 
insufficient to establish the level of recognition for the prizes or awards. The Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient background information on the events, the entities hosting the competitions, or other material 
to demonstrate that the prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized. An online article, 
entitled discussed 
the Petitioner's receipt of a Foundation grant. The article indicated that the foundation 
"discovers and encourages young classical singers" through its grants. The online material did not state 
or demonstrate that the grants are nationally or internationally recognized. In addition, the foundation's 
grants are available to "young" singers, excluding established singers from consideration. While an age 
limitation does not preclude a finding that the prize or award is national or internationally recognized, it 
is the Petitioner's burden to show that it is so recognized. The online article appeared on the website 
The record contains no information about the reach or other significance of this 
website such that the Petitioner has established coverage on it is . indicative of the national or 
international recognition of the award. 
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner does not provide any legal authority in support of his assertion that the 
Director erred in his decision. Instead, he states, in a conclusory manner, that he "documented the 
reception [sic]of various awards and prizes ofan international nature in his field." Statements made 
without supporting documentation have limited 
probative value and are not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings . Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' l Comm'r 1972)). Due to the 
lack of supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language of this 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. 
Although the Petitioner did not explicitly assert that he met this criterion, he did submit some published 
material, including the following articles: 
• 
• 
• . . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofR-Y-
This criterion requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that the material is published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media. In this case, the Petitioner did not submit any information 
about the publishers or-websites that published the articles, such as the nature of the publishers or 
websites, or their reach or readership level. Without such evidence, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the articles are published in qualifying publications or major media. As a result, he has not satisfied the 
plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Various forms of artistic display may satisfy this criterion. As a result, we evaluate the nature of the 
display to determine if the Petitioner has met this criterion. According to the plain language of the 
regulation, the exhibitions or showcases must be artistic in nature. The arts may include visual art, 
performing art, music, graphic art, and other examples of the fine arts. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he has performed in a number of veiJ.ues, including the "National Opera Halls in the 
Albania." The evidence indicates that he has displayed his work as a tenor at shows, 
including the Dam Festival, Chopin Kosova's Anniversary of Verdi Show, a recital concert at 
the National Theater of Kosovo, a charity concert at the Kosovo Philharmonics, a concert at the Dam 
Festival, and an Opera Showcase at Carnegie Hall. Although not every performing artist's show is 
necessarily an artistic exhibition, these events featured the Petitioner and a few select performers. 
Given the format and content of at least some of these performances, and the nature of the 
promotional material for those events, we find that they constitute a display of the Petitioner's work 
in artistic exhibitions or showcases. As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perform ed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distingui shed reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has met this criterion by virtue of his performance at 
Carnegie Hall. He states that he has "submitted several documents . establishing that he has 
performed his skills at distinguished institutions. We agree with the Petitioner that Carnegie Hall 
. has a distinguished reputation. However, the Petitioner must establish he has performed in a 
"leading or critical role" for an organization or establishment as whole, which encompasses more 
than one show. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational 
hierarchy and the role's matching duties. Similarly, a critical role is evidence from its overall impact 
on the organization or establishment. In this case, the Petitioner performed at Carnegie Hall on a 
single occasion in This level of involvement is not consistent with a finding that he has 
performed a leading or critical role for Carnegie Hall as a whole. The Petitioner has not filed 
documentation indicating that his association with Carnegie Hall extends beyond this single event. 
The Petitioner has also not pointed to any other evidence in the record demonstrating that he meets 
this criterion based on his association with other organizations or establishments. For these reasons, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
4 
Matter of R-Y-
B. Intention to Continue Working in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
In addition to the requirement that he demonstrates extraordinary ability, the Petitioner must show 
that he seeks to enter the United States in order to work in the field of his extraordinary ability. 
§ 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. The corresponding regulation requires "clear evidence that the 
[foreign national] is coming to the United States to continue to work in the area of expertise." 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The regulation goes on to state: "Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." Id 
On the Form I-140, the Petitioner provided that his proposed employment in the United States is an 
opera singer. Although the Petitioner need not have a job offer, the record must establish his intent 
to work in his area of expertise. The record lacks documentation of his plan in the United States, 
such as a statement detailing how he intends to continue his work as an opera singer. In his request 
for evidence (RFE), the Director asked for proof of the Petitioner's intent to continue his work in the 
United States. The Director also indicated in his decision that the petition was denied, in part, on the 
lack of showing of the Petitioner's intent. On appeal, the Petitioner has not addressed this issue or 
submitted material demonstrating his intent to continue to work in his area of expertise in the United 
States. As a result, the Petitioner has not met section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
C. Summary 
The Petitioner has not asserted or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level 
similar to that of the Nobel Prize. Moreover, he has satisfied only one of the four criteria for which 
he submitted relevant and probative material. Based on the record, and for the reasons discussed 
above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the requisite initial evidence 
of a one-time achievement or that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must show that the 
individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner submitted the 
requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian 
opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers the entire record in the 
context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and (2) that the foreign national "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see 
also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting items that meet 
the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
5 
Matter of R-Y-
Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
shown the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2 
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. § 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the 
Petitioner has not met that burden. · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-Y-, ID# 14864 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 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.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(l )(ii); see also INA §§ I 03(a)(l ), 204(b ); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.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). 
6