dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the 
AAO will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national 
or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The AAO 
reaffirmed that decision. 
On motion, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we reaffirm our previous 
decision, incorporated by reference into this decision. 
Section 203(b) of the 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. 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 immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a performing artist. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted photographs of trophies and award ceremonies featuring a small number of 
individuals sitting on the floor in a room with a drape and a handful of balloons as evidence that he won 
"Entertainer of the Year" at the 16' and 19' Golden Book Awards in 2001 and 2004 and "Best 
Dressed" at the 13', 14th, 15', 1 6', 17~ and 1 8' Golden Book Awards in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
2002, and 2003. While the record contains a photograph of the petitioner seeming to receive the 
"Entertainer of the Year" trophy in 200 1, the photograph of just the trophy itself appears to be enhanced 
with regard to the inscription, reducing the evidentiary weight of this evidence. Moreover, the July 30, 
2004 article in the "'Round the Biz" section of the Manila Bulletin submitted by the petitioner, 
however, indicates that the petitioner received recognition as "Entertainer of the Year" during the 1 7th 
and 19~~ Golden Book Awards in 2002 and 2004. While the discrepancy as to when the first 
"Entertainer of the Year" award was issued was not raised previously, it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies 
will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Id. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted an unsigned and 
unpublished document addressed to counsel's attention about the Golden Book Awards. The document 
appears to have been prepared by identified as - The document 
states that the awards currently recognize performers at The Library comedy club, which facilitates 
them in securing television and movie roles. Significantly, while the document states that the awards 
are a "coveted plum," it also states: "There are about twenty two awards that the owner happily gives to 
everyone every anniversary. Mostly, to uplift the credibility of the hosts in their acts the whole year 
through.'' 
As stated in our previous decision, in order to qualify under this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The AAO concluded that the awards were 
limited to performers at a single club and, thus, were not national in scope. The AAO further 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
concluded that the record lacked supporting evidence, such as news articles or letters from sponsoring 
organizations, documenting the prestige associated with these awards that would indicate their national 
or international recognition as awards for excellence in his field as required by 8 C.F.R. 
0 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On motion, counsel asserts that the AAO "failed to appreciate the fact that these awards were covered 
by national newspapers, which were originally submitted." Counsel also states that the petitioner 
submitted the April 15, 2002 issue of Time Magazine Asia listing The Library as one of the best 
entertainment places to visit in Manila. 
We acknowledge that The Library receives some media attention. At issue, however, is not the club's 
reputation but whether or not the awards it issues are nationally or internationally recognized. The 
record contains a single article in Intrigue reporting the issuance of awards by The Library. The record 
- 
contains no evidenceregarding the significance of this publication. ~oreovei, the 
 and text 
are by identified as on the abovementioned unsigned document 
submitted by the petitioner. Thus, this "article" appears to be a promotional press release which carries 
less weight than independent journalistic coverage. 
First, the petitioner has not established that the "Best Dressed" awards represent recognition for 
excellence as a performer. Thus, we will only consider the "Entertainer of the Year" awards. We 
reaffirm our prior finding that an award limited to a pool of performers at a single comedy club, even a 
distinguished comedy club, cannot constitute a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award. 
The record contains evidence of other Filipino comedy clubs that also receive media attention, such as 
Klownz and Comic Lab, whose performers would not be eligible to compete for awards from The 
Library unless they also happened to perform at that venue as well. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our finding that the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classlJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
On motion, counsel does not contest our previous finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
his membership in the Actors Guild of the Philippines and the Katpunan Porvenir Theatre Company 
can serve meet this criterion and we reaffirm that finding by incorporating that analysis into this 
decision by reference. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(iii) 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 classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
As stated in ow previous decision, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be 
primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), be printed in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
On motion, counsel does not contest the AAO's finding that materials postdating the filing of the 
petition cannot be considered as evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of the filing date. 8 C.F.R. 
54 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45. Counsel also does not contest the 
AAO's finding that promotional materials such as posters cannot serve to meet this criterion as they 
do not appear in professional or trade journals or other major media. In addition, counsel does not 
contest the AAO's conclusion that the Internet search results for the petitioner's name cannot serve to 
meet this criterion. Finally, the petitioner does not submit certified translations for the foreign 
language published materials, which the AAO noted was mandated under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
and 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) but absent from the record. We reaffirm the AAO's prior conclusions on 
these issues and the analysis in our previous decision, which we incorporate by reference. Regarding 
the Internet search results, we further note that the petitioner searched for his first and last name 
without quotes, allowing for results that do not relate to the petitioner at all. We will consider the 
remaining evidence relating to this criterion below. 
The petitioner submitted copies of press releases, promotional materials and articles appearing both on 
the Internet and in print. The AAO stated that international accessibility via the internet is not a 
realistic indicator of whether a given publication qualifies as a professional or trade journal or other 
major media. As noted in our previous decision, the petitioner presented no information regarding the 
general online readership of the websites on which these articles appeared or any other indication that 
the websites constitute professional or major trade journals or other major media as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Significantly, the AAO further noted that most of these 
articles were not primarily about the petitioner but instead mentioned his name in a list of performers at 
particular events. 
The articles that can be said to be "about" the petitioner are: an article in the Midweek Balita where he 
appears with counsel in an article with no journalist byline, an article in FAB by an 
article in the Manila Bulletin by and an article allegedly in the Philippine Daily Inquirer 
as reprinted on The Library's website. The AAO concluded that, based on the information submitted 
about Midweek Balita, it is a regional Filipino-American publication available only in Southern 
California. The AAO further acknowledged the submission by the petitioner of information from 
Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia) regarding the circulation of The Manila Bulletin. The AAO 
declined to consider the information, noting that there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited internet site.2 The AAO acknowledged that counsel asserts that 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
the Manila Bulletin is national in scope, but noted that the unsupported assertions of counsel are not 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I. & N. Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I. & N. Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, the AAO noted the lack of reliable information supporting counsel's assertions. Thus, the 
AAO concluded that the petitioner had not established that the Manila Bulletin is a professional or 
major trade journal or other major media. 
On motion, counsel erroneously concludes that the AAO determined that the Manila Bulletin is not a 
professional or major trade journal or other major media based on a search at www.google.com. 
Counsel asserts that a search on this website produces results other than a description on Wikipedia 
and asserts that a search of this newspaper as well as Balita, the Philippine Star and the Philippine 
Daily Inquirer would demonstrate that they are qualifying media. 
We reiterate that it was the petitioner who submitted materials from Wikipedia about the Manila 
Bulletin. For the reasons stated in our previous decision and reiterated above, these materials, 
submitted by the petitioner (and not through an Internet search by the AAO) will not be considered. 
On motion, counsel does not provide new evidence or even reference a specific website that contains 
the circulation data or other evidence that might establish that the above publications are professional 
or major trade journals or other major media.3 Rather, counsel appears to suggest that it is the 
AAO's responsibility at this stage in the proceeding to research the publications which have covered 
the petitioner on the Internet. It is the petitioner's burden, however, to submit the evidence to 
establish every element of a given criterion, including that the materials appeared in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media. 
Without reliable evidence supporting counsel's assertions regarding the media that have covered the 
petitioner, we cannot conclude that they constitute professional or major trade journals or other 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human 
knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter 
its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by 
people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. 
The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by 
someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant 
fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disclaimers, accessed on February 18, 2009 (and added to the 
record of proceeding). 
3 
 Counsel does reference the website of the Manila Bulletin but our review of that website, accessed on 
October 23, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding) does not provide any circulation or 
distribution data. We will not infer the publication's major media status solely from the fact that it maintains 
a website. 
major media. 
 Even if we were to conclude that the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Daily 
Inquirer are professional or major trade journals or other major media and that the article on The 
Library's website attributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer actually appeared in that newspaper, the 
evidence falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets any other criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
On motion, counsel does not challenge the AAO's decision that the petitioner has not established that 
he meets this criterion and we reaffirm our findings by incorporating our prior decision by reference. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On motion, counsel does not challenge the AAO's decision that the petitioner has not established that 
he meets this criterion and we reaffirm ow findings by incorporating ow prior decision by reference. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion by virtue of his appearance on the television show, 
"World Musikahan" hosted by and his appearance at a variety of comedy clubs 
including Naughty Strings Acoustic Comedy Bar, KLOWNZ Bar and Restaurant, Sitcom Live, Library 
Sing-Along Bar and Restaurant, Comic Lab Bar & Restaurant. 
 The AAO rejected all of these 
assertions. 
 On motion, counsel only addresses the petitioner's one-time appearance on "World 
Musikahan." We incorporate our previous findings by reference and will address only the petitioner's 
appearance on "World Musikahan." 
The AAO acknowledged the submission of an article allegedly from Business Wire reproduced on 
Encyclopedia.com about The Filipino Channel network on which "World Musikahan" airs. This article 
indicates that "TFC is viewed by more than one million Filipinos around the globe every day." In 
addition, according to the article, the show is one of TFC's most popular programs. The AAO 
concluded that even if the television show andlor station were shown to have a distinguished 
reputation, the petitioner did not establish that his appearances on the television show amounted to a 
leading or critical role. As noted by the AAO, the Business Wire article states that- 
television show hosts many different types of artists including "notable Pinoy songwriters and lyricists, 
up-and-coming Fil-Am entertainers and even a karaoke jam night featuring renowned karaoke club 
legends." Counsel asserts that the petitioner served as a "featured special guest performer" on the show. 
An undated press release indicates that the petitioner appeared with two other singers on one episode 
of the show. As noted by the AAO, the record contains no evidence of additional appearances or 
evidence of how the petitioner's appearance as one of three performers led to the television show's 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative 
of sustained national or international acclaim. On motion, counsel reiterates the significance of TFC 
and "World Musikahan" and concludes that an invitation to appear and perform on this show "is an 
honor in itself." A one-time appearance on a variety show, however, is not a leading or critical role for 
that variety show. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
performer to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that 
the petitioner shows talent as a performer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set 
him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the previous decision of 
the AAO will be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's decision of March 20,2009 is affirmed. The petition is denied.