dismissed EB-1A Case: Opera

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: AUG 2 3 20120FFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
LoS. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. CililCTI:-.llip alld Ill1ll1igrali()fl ~t:n il"C'" 
Adll1illi~trali\'c Appeal:-. Office (i\i\O) 
20 Ma:-.sachustllS Ave., N,Vo.i " 1\1'1 2()l)() 
Washington. [)C 20S2lJ-2()90 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to 
Section 2!n(h)( I)(A) 01 the Immigration and NatilJnality Act; K U.s.C. ~ I 15](h)( I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please lind the decision 01 the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
dOCUlllcllh n:i(l(cd to this matter have heen returned to the otliCt.: thai originally decided your \..:asc. Please 
hc advi~cLi lha1 any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he madc to that office. 
If you hclit.:vt.: the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that y'Ou wish 10 have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
ill aCCOf(jance with the instruction:-. on Form 1-2908, Notice.: of Appe.:al or Motion, with a fcc of $fi)O. The 
.... pe.:cific re.:quiremeilis for filing :-.uch a motion can he found at H C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that X C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within JO uays of the lkcision that the motion secks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chid, Administrative Appeals Ollice 
w,,,"'w.uscis.gov 
Pag.c .2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on May 13,2011, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(J)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.C ~ I 153(b)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as an opera singer. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" orhis or her achievements. See section 203(b)(J)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of sllch an award. the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
In the direetor's decision. she determined that the petitioner only met the published material 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the artistic display criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at ~ CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). In counsel's brief on appeal, counsel 
affirms the decision of the director regarding the publisbed material criterion and the artistic display 
criterion and claims that the petitioner also meets the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at t; CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Counsel does not contest the findings of the director for 
any of the other previously claimed criteria or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers them to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. AtI:v (;el1., 40 I F.3d 1226. 122~ n. 2 (II th 
Cir. 2(05): Hril/()\·· I'. Roark. No. 01J-CV-2731201 I, 20 II WL 4711 t;85 at * I. *IJ (E.D.N. Y. Sept. 
30.2(11) (the court Illlmel the plaintilrs claims to be abandoned as he I[liled to mise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who arc aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
-Page J 
(i) Ihe alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States, 
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigranl visas as aliens of extraordinary ability, See H,R, 723101" Cong" 2d 
Sess, 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60t\97, 60t\9t\-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tenm "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; R C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at ~ C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitIOner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition 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, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least Ihree of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at t\ C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 20 IO, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under Ihis classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d IllS (9th Cir. 2(10). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria 
al K C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about Ihe significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have bccn raised in a subsequent "'final merits determination." hi. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the signiticance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry. the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did):' and if the 
petitioner failed to submit suf'licient evidence. "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to S C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3». 
I Specifically, the court :-.latcu that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel suhstantive or evidentiary requirements 
i>cyolili ,ho,e 'C1 I'lIIth ill the reguialioll' al ~ C'.I-.R. § 2114.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C'.F,R. * 2114.5(h)(J)(,i). 
Page ~ 
Thus, Kuzarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
I'llbiisized mrl1l'rial ahollt tizl.' alien in professiollal or major trade pllhlic(ltiol1S or 
other mojo}" IIlcdia. relatin!, to the alien"s work in the/ie/d.f;'r lrhich classification is 
sOllgizt. SlIch Cl'idellce sizall inclllde tize title, date, and awhor of the mat('}"ial, and 
llllV I[(!ct'.\san' tralls/atioll. 
As indicated above, the director determined that the petitIOner established eligibility for this 
criterion. However. based upon a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[plublished material 
about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the 
alien's work in the ticld for which ciassitication is sought." In general. in order for published 
material to meet this criterion. it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
itS mitjor mediit, the publicittion should have significant national or international distributioll. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers" 
Furthermore, theplain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "lsiueh 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
At the outset, in response to the director" s request lor additional evidence pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.r:.R. § 103.2(h)(S), counsel claimed: 
I W Ie would Erst like to note that the criterion is "l'lIhlisized m{l/erial ahow rile "lien 
ill proj('ssiollal O}" major trade Pllhlicatiolls or orher major media relating to the 
alien's work illlhejiehf IsicJ. There is no requirement that the published material 
be about the alien- rather it must be relating to their work. 
- On appeal, thc petitioner UOL'S not claim 10 mccl any of the regublDfy categories of evidence no! discussed in this 
decisiun. 
; Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given 10 thi; placement or the aftick. For 
example, an article that appears in the l'v'ashinguJ/I Post, but in a section that i~ distributcu only in Fairfax C()unty, 
Virginia, for instanl'c, ,:aIlJlO[ SL'r\'e 10 "prcad an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page) 
(Emphasis in original.) 
On the contrary, the plain language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p[ublishcd material aholll the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in the lield for which c1assilication is sought [emphasis added]."' 
COlllpare 8 c:.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to 
section 203(b)( I )(H) of the Act. which only requires published material about the alien's work. 
Therefore. in order to meet the plain language of this criterion, the petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence reOecting published material about her relating to her work in the field. 
\1orcover. the submission of evidence that simply mentions the petitioner's name as one of the 
performers, quotes the petitioner, or is not otherwise about the petitioner fails to equate to published 
material about the alien relating to her work in the field. An article that is not about the petitioner 
docs not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-PlulIlpe v. Okill, 2:07-CY -K20-ECR-RJJ at 
* L *7 (D. Nev. Sept. k. 200f\) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). In the case here, which will be discussed in depth below, the petitioner submitted material 
that mentioned her as a performer but was not material ah(ml her relating to her work. The AAO is 
not persuaded that anytime an alien's name is mentioned in the media the alien would automatically 
qualify for the regulation at K CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addition, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires the material to 
he published '"in professional or Im~;or trade publications or other major media." As indicated 
helow, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting material posted on the Internet. 
However, the AAO is not persuaded that articles posted on the Internet from a printed publication or 
tium an organization arc automatically considered major media. In today's world, many 
newspapers, publ ications, and organizations, regardless of size and distribution, post at least some 
of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the '"major media" 
requirement meaningless. However, the AAO is not persuaded that international accessihility by 
itself is a realistic indicator ()fwhether a given website is '"major media." In the case here. while the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding the websites, the petitioner failed to 
submit independent, objective evidence establisbing tbat tbe websites are considered major media. 
See Bral'{/ v. POll los, No. CY On 510S SJO (C D, CA July 6, 2(07) atl"d 2009 WL 6041188 (9th Cir. 
2(09) (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). 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the following 
documelllatioCl: 
I. A partial scrcenshot entitled. '"Mostly Unfamiliar, But Worthy, Orchestral 
Musie hy Barher." March 14, 200S, J. Scott Morrison, ~W".'In.I!:!£0.1lS.I)I11; 
2. A partial screens hot entitled, "Reviews," unidentilied date. unidentified 
author. ~~'\\Y~>ll.i.!XOS.~Qrn; 
3. An at1icie entitled. "Trades House New Year Concert. Royal Concert Hall. 
(ilasgow." January 2. 2002. Michael Tumelty. The Herald; 
4. A partial article entitled. "College & Fringe Reviews." April 2002. 
unidentified author. Opera; 
5. An articie entitled. "Music at West End - A Special Night" NO\cmber 5. 
200t). Nino Pantano. Italian Trihlllle; 
6. An article entitled. "Music at West End Presents Lesley Craigie and Carl 
Tanner in RecitaL" September 24. 2009. Nino Pantano. The Ita/ian Voice; 
7. A screenshot entitled. "french Chansons. Scots Songs and Duets From 
Otello. Manon I.escaut!·· September 13th [unidentified year]. unidentified 
aut ho r. \Vl\'.\',\:llIblr"e tim c .co m; 
b. A snippet entitled. "Must at West End:' September I O-Ift. 2009. unidentified 
authoL Time (Jilt New York; 
t). A screcnshot entitled. "A Bit of Italy and the High-C at AquaMarina:' 
unidentified date, Adam Garrett-Clark, www.manhattantimesnews.com; 
1(1. An article entitled. "Last-Minute Hero Saves the Show:' N()\ember 22. 
2002. unidentified author. Inverness Courier; 
II. An article entitled. "Young Singers Show Their Promise:' unidentitied date. 
unidentiJled author. unidentified publication; 
12. An article entitled. "Music for a Summer Evening." May 24. 2002. 
unidentified author, The Fire Free Press; and 
13. An article entitled. "Opera Sets Otr Tears ... of Laughter." February 2002. 
unidentified author, r,'dinhur!!,h Evenin!!, News. 
Regarding item I, the partial sereenshot rellects a music review "of Barber's orchestral music with 
Marin Alsop conducting the Royal Scottish National Orchestra." The petitioner is mentioned one 
lime as being one of the soloists. As the sereenshot does not retlect published material about the 
petitioner relating to her work. rather than a review of Barber's orchestral music. it docs not meet 
the plain language of this criterion. 
Regarding item 2. the petitioner failed to include the date and author of the sercenshot as required 
pursuanl to the regulation at tl C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover. similar to item 3. the partial 
scrcenshot retlects multiple reviews regarding Barber's orchestral music. In lact. the petitioner is 
never mentioned in the partial screenshot. Clearly, the sereenshot fails to relleet published material 
Page 7 
about the petitioner relating to her work. Further, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence establishing that vv"W,lla'd)c',_COQ1 is a major medium. 
Regarding items 3. the article is about the Ne'erday Trades House concert rather than about the 
petitioner. The petitioner is mentioned one time as being one of the performers but is not published 
material about the petitioner consistent with the plain language of the regulation at tl C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Notwithstanding, the petitioner submitted a screenshot from 
wvv,y,heraldscotlantl,L"olll that indicated that The Herald "is one of the oldest newspapers in the 
world." However. the sercenshot provides no evidence establishing that The Herald is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium, and the petitioner failed to submit 
any independent. ohjectivc evidence heyond the publication's website. 
Regarding item 4. the petitioner failed to include the author of the material as required pursuant to 
the regulation at H C.F.R. ~ 204.S(h)(3 )(iii). Furthermore, the partial article renec" a review of the 
performances of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama's (RSAMD) three operas rather 
than published material about the petitioner relating to her work. Once again, the article mentions 
the petitioner one time as being one of the performers in the third opera but the article is about 
RSA\I![)" s perfonmmees as a whole. 
Regarding items 5 and 6, the articles arc essentially the same but published in two different 
publications. Although the articles mention the petitioner several times, the articles are about a 
recital performed at the West End Presbyterian Church in New York. An article that is not ahout 
the petitioner does not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., NeKm-l'llllllpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV­
H20-ECR-RJJ at *7 (upholding a finding that articles about a show arc not about the actor). In 
addition, the petitioner tililcd to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that Italian 
Trihlll/c and The Italian Voice are professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Regarding item 7, the petitioner failed to include the author and year of the material as required 
pursuant to the regulation at tl C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, the screenshot reflects promotional 
material h)r a free performance with Carl Tanner and Evan Solomon rather than published material 
about the petitioner relating to her work. Moreover. the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence establishing thilt,,\\\\,c.ly.llJ):c·,Jiull:,.(:OiJ) is a major medium. 
Regarding item K, the petitioner failed to include the author of the material as required pursuant to 
the regulation al H C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition, similar to item 7, the snippet simply 
reflects a promotional advertisement for a performance at the 
West End Church and is nOI puhlished material about plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. The petitioner also submitted a leiter from Angela Sundstrom, 
Assistant Consumer Marketing Manager at Time (Jilt New York, who stated that the publication has 
a circulation of 150,000 readers. However, the AAO is not persuaded that such circulation statistics 
in the New York City ilnd surrounding areas is reflective of a major trade publication or other major 
medium. 
Page X 
Regarding item l), the petitioner failed to include the date of the material as required pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the sereenshot retleets a review of the author's 
night at the AquaMarina rather than published material aboul the petitioner relating to her work. 
Although the author mentions the petitioner performing at the AquaMarina, the author discusses the 
food, overall atmosphere, and the performances as a whole at the AquaMarina. In addition, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that \Vww~cllal]ll'm'l.mime~.col11 
is a major medium. 
Regarding item lO, the petitioner failed to include the author of the material as required pursuant to 
the regulation at t\ C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the article is about a review of a show by 
the Inverness Choral Society at the Elijah Eden Court Theatre. While the petitioner is mentioned 
one time as being one of the performers, the article is not about the petitioner but about the theatrical 
production. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence retlecting that 
/1lI'l'r/leSV Courier is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Regarding item 11, the petitioner failed to include the date and author of the material as required 
pursuant to the regulation at H CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition, the petitioner failed to identify 
where the article was published, let alone establish that the article was published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major medium. Further, the article reflects a review of a recital at 
the St. Rrycedale's Church in \\hieh the petitioner was one of the perfonners. 
Regarding item 12, the petitioner failed to include the author of the material as required pursuant to 
the regulation at H CF.R. & 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the article is about an upcoming summer 
concert in which several performers, including the petitioner, arc scheduled to pert(lfIn. Again, the 
article is not about the petitioner rather than about the upcoming summer concert. Further, the 
petitioner submitted a screenshot from \:v-,-v\V~briti:ihpapers.co.uk reflecting that The Fit" Free Press 
""is a weekly broadsheet newspaper sold in the central southern coast of the Kingdom of Fife. 
around the town of Kirkcaldy and including the smaller towns of Aberdour, Burntisland and 
Wemyss"" and "liJt's the lead title in a group of weekly newspapers for File published by Strachan 
& l.ivingston Ltd. a braneh of the nationwide group of regional newspapers, Johnston Press." It 
appears that The Fit,' Free ['ress is a local or regional publication and is not retlcctive of a major 
medium. 
Finally, regarding item 13. the petitioner failed to include the author of the material as required 
pursuant to the regulation at H CF.R. ~ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). In addition, the article rellects a review of 
RSAMD's performance of three operas. In fact, the petitioner is not even mentioned in the article 
and is not published material about the petitioner relating to her work pursuant to the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion. 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at H CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
""I p luhlished material about the alien in professional or m~jor trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's \\ork in the field for which classification is sought.'· In this case. the 
petitioner's documentary evidence fails to rctlect published material aholll her relating to her work 
Page t) 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. As such, the AAO withdraws the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
fl'idena oj the di.lpILll· or the alien's work in the field at artistic exhihitions or 
Sh(H1. '(0(1.\'(,,\. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion based on her 
performances at various venues. However, based upon a review of the record of proceeding, the 
AAO must withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.S(h)(3)(vii) requires "re]vidence of the 
display of the alien's work in the tield at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The petitioner is an 
opera singer. When she is performing or singing before an audience, she is not displaying her music 
in the same sense that a painter or sculptor displays his or her work in a gallery or museum. The 
petitioner is performing her work, she is not displaying her work. In addition, to the extent that the 
petitioner is a pert()f)ning artist, it is inherent to her occupation to perform. Not every performance 
is an artistic exhibition designed to showcase the performer's art. In fact, on appeal, counsel claims 
that the petitioner's performances also meet the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). If the AAO was to accept that a performance artist like 
the petitioner meets the artistic display criterion, it would render the regulatory requirement that the 
petitioner meet at least three criteria meaningless as this criterion would effectively be collapsed 
into the criterion at the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The ten criteria in the regulations 
are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. 
The interpretation that i\ C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and 
has been upheld by a federal district court. See Nq:ro-Plllnll'e \'. ()kill, 2:07-CY-tQO-ECR-RJJ at 
'7 (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C'.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art 
th<lt were on displ<ly at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not submilled qualifying 
evidence th<lt meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Therefore. while the petitioner's performances have evidentiary value fiJI' another criterion, they 
cannot serve to meet this criterion. Instead, as the petitioner's performances are far more relevant to 
the atorementioned "leading or critical role" criterion set fixth at the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.S(h)(3)(viii), they will be discussed separately within the context of that criterion. As such, 
the AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
I-.'videllce thill the alien has I'erjimned in a leading or critical role fiJ" orRanizations 
or establishments that have a distinRuished reputatioll. 
Pa!!l' I () 
At the initial tiling of the petition. counsel claimed the petitioner"s eligibility t(lr this criterion and 
slaled: 
IThe petitioner] performed with the Baltimore Opera Company [SOC] ill La 
Traviata as a soprano in October 22-30,2005 in addition to performing regularly as 
a part -time member and as a collaborator in the coaching of opera arias. . . . 
Therefore. [the petitioner"s] role as a member of the Opera Chorus. as a collaborator 
in the coaching of opera arias and a representative of the Baltimore Opera in 
performances as opera arias and ensembles is clearly a critical role for this highly 
renowned organization. As such, Ithe petitioner] is clearly performing in a critical 
capacity. 1 BOC] is considered to bc an organization of distinguished reputation .... 
In addition to her experience with [SOC], [the petitioner] performed with the Nl'w 
.Iersev Opera Thmter in 4 shows in the summer of 2004 .... 
IThe petitioner] played the role of Frasquita in Carml'll with the Opera on a 
Shoestring in Glasgow UK .... 
In addition to her performances with the above-mentioned groups of distinguished 
reputation. [the petitioner) has also performed as a principal role with many other 
groups also to be considered of high renown .... 
In support of counsel·, claims. counsel reterred to the documentary cvidence suhmitted in support 
orthe artistic display criterion. However. in the director·s request for additional documentation. the 
director stated that ··1 n 10 evidence has been provided for this criterion.'· In response to the director"s 
request for additional documentation, while counsel addressed the other grounds and issues by the 
director and submitted additional documentation, counsel did not address the director's finding or 
submit additional documentation regarding the leading or critical role criterion. In the director·s 
denial of the petition. the director again indicated that "[n]o evidence has been provided for this 
criterion:· 
On appeal. counsel docs not claim that the director erred because the criterion was claimed at the 
initial filing of the petition. Instead, counsel claims: 
In the applicant·s April. 2006 petition. the criteria [sic] has indeed been met. In their 
21107 decision IUSCIS] found that the criteria [sic] had been met based on [the 
pctitioner"sJ regular peri()rmances for the [SOC]. The decision also stated that the 
evidence shows she is a part time member and collaborator in coaching of opera 
arias and that she serves a critical role .... [USCIS] completely disregarded this 
earlier finding in its recent denial. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that on April 25, 2006, the petitioner filed a previous 
employment-based immigrant petition pursuant to section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act, as an alien of 
extraordinary ability as an opera singer. On July 25, 2007, the Director, Nebraska Service Center, 
Pagl: 11 
denied the petition but found that the petitioner met the leading or critical role criterion. 
Specifically. the director stated: 
The record shows that the petitioner perf(mllS regularly for the IHOCJ. The record 
shows c\ilknce that says that she is a "part-time membcr" and "orb as a 
"collaborator in the coaching of opera aria';." Ordinarily, being a part-time membcr 
might not mcet a criterion of eligibility, but given the evidence in this matter, it is 
clear that the petitioner serves a critical role. 
While the regulation at tl C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on 
all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished AAO decisions, as well as 
service center decisions, are not similarly binding. Therefore, a service center director is not bound 
to follow a prior decision either from the same service center or from a different service center 
especiall} when the record of proceeding does not support the initial favorable finding. 
Similarly, the AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., 
Maller of Church Scienwlogv International, 191&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be 
absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. 
Sussex Engg. Ltd. \'. MOlltgoml'rv, tl25 F.2d 1084, 1090 (lith Cir. 19t17), ccrt. delliI'd, 485 U.S. 1008 
( 1988). 
Furthermore, the AAC),s authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved an 
immigrant petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory 
decision of a service center. iJJllisiwUl Philharmonic Orchr>stra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. 
La.). all'''. 248 F.3d 113'! (5th Cir. 200 I), cerl. delliI'd, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2()O I). 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. Sec 5j)eIlcer Ellterprises, Illc. v. United States, 22'! F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2(01), "ff'd, 345 F.3d 683 ('lh Cir. 2003); see "Iso Soltane v. DO}, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2(04) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover. in the directors prior decision, he determined the petitioner's eligibilit} for this criterion 
based solely with her roles with the [BOC]. However, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires 
the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires a leading or critical role with more 
than one organization or establishment. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
arc worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only 
require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes 
to include the singular within the plural, it expressly docs so as when it states at K C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(H) that evidence of experience must be in the fOl1n of "Ietler(s)." Thus, the AAO 
can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context. 
Page 12 
federal courts have upheld USC/SO ability to interpret signiticance !rom whether the singular or 
plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C 
Cir. March 26, 20()S): SlIapllames.com Illc. v. Cher/off, 2006 WL 3491005 at * 10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 
20(6) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, as the director based his findings on the 
petitioner's roles with only one organization, BOC, the petitioner failed to meet the plain language 
or the regulation at S CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Further, as indicated above. on appeal. counsel claims the petitioner's role as "a part time member 
and coll"hora{or ill coachillg oj' opera arias l emphasis added]" with BOC meets this criterion. 
Moreover, the director in the prior decision indicated that the petitioner collaborated as a coach of 
opera arias. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or intemational acclaim to 
be sustained and that she seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See 
sections 203(b)(I)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, S U.S.C §§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i) and (ii), and S CF.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While an opera singer and opera coach or teacher share knowledge of the 
art. the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, opera singing and opera coaching are 
not the same area or expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in federal court. In Lee p. I.N.S, 
237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. III. 20(2), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary 
ability" as working in the same pro tess ion in which one has extraordinary ability, 
not necessarily in any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary 
ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all 
positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
hi. at <) 18. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter. the petitioner did 
not file her petition as an opera coach or as an opera singer and coach; rather the petitioner seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability solely as an opera singer. While the AAO 
acknowledges the possibility of an alien's extraordinary claim in more than one field. such as opera 
singing and opera coaching. the petitioner. however. must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." See the regulation at 
S CF.R. § 204.S(h)(S). Thcrcf(lfe. the petitioner's role as a "collaborator in the coaching of opera 
arias" will not he considered to estahlish her eligibility for this criterion. 
Regardless. in the case here. the director did not determine that a review or reevaluation of the 
documentary evidence did not support USClS' prior linding. Instead. the director erroneously 
concluded that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence for this criterion when in 
lact counsel specifically claimcd the petitioner's eligibility and referred to the documentation. 
Although counsel claims on appeal that the petitioner meets this criterion based on her role with 
HOC a review of the documentary evidence, including the performance programs for various 
operas and recommendation letters, reflects that the petitioner performed in leading or critical roles 
for more than one organization or establishment with distinguished reputations. Therefore, the 
Page ]J 
petitioner minimally meets the plain language of the regulation at t\ CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As 
such. the AAO withdraws the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly. the petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Ill. 0-1 NONIMMGRANT 
The AAO notcs that at the time of the filing of the petition. the petitioner was last admitted to the 
United States on June 5. 200'J. as an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. Although the words "extraordinary ability" arc used in the Act fix classification 
of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 and the first preference employment-based immigrant 
categories, the statute and regulations define the term differently for each classification. Section 
101 (a)( 4(») of the Act states that "J tJhe term 'extraordinary ability' means, for purposcs of section 
IOI(a)(15)(O)(i). in the case of the arts. distinction." The 0-1 regulation reiterates that 
"[eJxtraordinary ability in the ticld of arts means distinction." to: C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
"Distinction" is a lower standard than that required for the immigrant classification. which defines 
extraordinary ability as "a lewl of expertise indicating that the individual is onc of that small 
percentage who hme risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor." il c:.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several respects. for example. 
nominations for awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 8 C.F.R. 
* 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A). but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory and 
regulatory distinction between these two classifications, the petitioner's receipt of 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification is not evidence of his eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability. Further, the AAO does not find that an approval of a nonimmigrant visa 
mandates the approval of a similar immigrant visa. Each case must be decided on a case-by-case 
basis upon review of the evidence of record. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g, Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
20m): IKEA us v. US /Jept. ofJllStice, 4ti F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1'J'J9); Falin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava. 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. l'Jil'J). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q !Jaill COIl,u/ting. Inc, v. INS. 293 F. Supp. 2d at 2'J-30; see a/w) Texas A&M 
Unit·. t'. Upchurch, Y'J Fed. Appx. 5S(), 2004 WL 12404i:12 (5th Cir. 2()()4) (finding that pl'lor 
approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petItions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See. e.g. Malter o{ 
Pagl: l-l 
Church Scienlolol{l' IlIlemaliollal.IYI&NDec.at 5Y7. It would he ahsurd to suggest that USCIS 
or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 1,·nRcg. Ud v. 
MOl1lgomcry, 825 F.2d at WYO. c<'rl. dl'l1ied, 485 U.S. at 1008. 
Furtheml0re. the AA(), s authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimmigrant petition on hehalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmollic Orcheslra v. INS, 2000 WL at 
21-12785, a/Td, 248 F.3d at I LN. C('I'I. dl'llied, 122 S.C!. at 51. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. Sec SI'e/lcl'r Fl1Ierl'rill's, Inc. v. Ulliled Slales, 22lJ F. Supp. 2d at 1043. aJTd, 345 
F.3dat 083; see also Soitalll' v. DO.!, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de IlIJI'O basis). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or intemational acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazariall opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of thel ir] tield of endeavor" and (2) .. that the alien has slIstained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expcI1ise." ~ C.F.R. ~~ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazariall, 590 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very lOp of the field or sustained national or international acclaim. Ihe AAO need 
not explain thaI conclusion in a final merits determination 4 Rather, Ihe proper conclusion is thaI the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. iii. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not he approved. 
~ The AAO maintain:-. de novo review or all 4uestions of fact and law. See SO/lane v. 00.1, ~.sl F.3d at 145. In any 
future proceeding, the i\AO maintains the jurisdiction 10 conduct a final merits determination as the office that madc the 
la" Licci,ion in Ihi, mailer. K CF.R. ~ 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also scelion 103(a)(I) of the Act: 'cetion 204(h) of the Act: 
IlIiS Ilelegation Numher 111511.1 t clfective March 1, 20m): 8 cr.R. * 2. t (20m): K CY.R. * 1 OJ.1 ([)(3 )(iii) (211m): 
;"'.latter ofAllrelio, 19 I&N Dec. 4.5X, 460 (BlA 19H7) (holding that legacy INS, now USC'IS, is the sole authority 
with the jurisuicti()11 [0 ueciue visa petitions). 
-
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, K U.s.c:. ~ Dill. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.