dismissed EB-1A Case: Pianist

U.S. De~artment of Homeland Securitv 
identifying data dekteted to 
prevect clearly unw3rfinan:ed 
invasion of pasmal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrnrive Appenls MS 2090 
Washington, LX 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JUN 0 5 2009 
LIN 07 140 50314 
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. 5 1153(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. fj 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). 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, 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)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues through counsel that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
g 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) hority 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 ths 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 seelung immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in ths 
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. $ 204.50(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. $ 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "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. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
This petition, filed on April 11,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
pianist. The petitioner initially submitted news articles, award certificates, letters of recommendation, and 
concert programs. In response to a Request for Evidence ("WE") dated February 13, 2008, the petitioner 
submitted information about her awards and additional music programs. We address the evidence submitted 
and the petitioner's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to her case. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R.9 204.5(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, she claims, meets the following criteria. The petitioner 
does not claim eligibility under any criteria not addressed below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner's performance in the JaCn International piano competition, the 
Marie Canals music competition, and the Arthur Rubinstein piano master competition qualifies her under this 
criterion. The petitioner submitted evidence of her first place victory in the 2006 JaCn Prize Piano 
Competition, first place in the 2003 Maria Canals International Piano Competition, and her invitation to 
participate in the 2008 Arthur Rubenstein International Piano Master Competition. The Arthur Rubenstein 
competition cannot be considered as it occurred after the date that this petition was filed. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 
$8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Information about the JaCn 
competition, provided by Wilupedia states that the competition is "the most important Piano Comptetition 
[sic] in Spain." With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of 
the content from this open, user-edited internet site.' 
1 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. 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 ha 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. 
Page 4 
The information provided by the JaCn Competition website states that the competition is limited to pianists 
under 32 years of age who have not previously won the JaCn Competition. The information provided from 
the Maria Canals Competition website states that the prize is awarded every two years. A March 19, 2008 
letter from states that the Maria Canals competition is "one of the most important piano 
competitions in the world" and that previous winners "have continued their already acclaimed career touring 
the world." The letter from Uriel Tsachor states that the Maria Canals Competition is "a major international 
competition." The letter from - states that the JaCn competition and the Maria Canals 
competition are "some of the classical community's greatest international competitions." further 
stated that the Maria Canals competition "is one the Europe's most prestigious musical events that features 
only the most skilled and awe-inspiring musicians." The letter from states that the JaCn 
competition and the Maria Canals competition are "esteemed international competitions." Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of 
California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Beyond the assertions of the writers, the petitioner has 
failed to provide evidence establishing the nature of these competitions or that winning any one of the 
competitions equates to the receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
The petitioner also supplied a March 6, 1989 article titled "Competitions That Crown International Stars" 
from The New York Times, which lists the Arthur Rubenstein International Piano Master Competition among 
eight "major piano competiotions [sic] held around the world." On appeal, counsel states that since The New 
York Times article states that the top competitions all have age limits, the competitions in which the petitioner 
participated should be given more weight than that afforded by the Director. While we accept that some 
competitions that are limited by age may qualify an alien under this criterion, evidence must be presented to 
show that a limited competition amounts to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. In this case, the petitioner presented no evidence that she won any of those eight 
competitions. In addition, the petitioner did not provide evidence that either the JaCn competition or the 
Maria Canals competition falls into the same category as the eight competitions specified in The New York 
Times article. She also fails to show how these awards constitute awards for excellence in the field if they did 
not allow all performers worlung in the field to compete regardless of age or experience. 
In addition to the above listed competitions, the petitioner submitted evidence of her receipt of third place in 
the 2001 Anana Katz music competition, first place in the 2001 Paul Ben Haim competition, third place in the 
2001 Israeli Academy of Music competition, sixth place in the 2004 International Piano e-competition, 
second place in the 2004 Da Cidade do Porto Competition, fourth place, in the 2004 lSt Panama International 
Piano Competitions, second place in the 2005 International Piano Competition Cidade de Ferrol, best 
interpretation of Spanish Music prize in the 2006 VII International Piano Competition Spanish Composers, 
and special prize to the best competitor who did not receive other prizes in the 2006 International Piano 
Competition Alessandro Casagrande. The petitioner also presented evidence of her participation in the 2005 
Hong Kong International Piano Competition. The information provided from the Competition Alessandro 
Casagrande website states that the award is given every two years to "young candidates." The information 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki~ikipedia:Generaldisclaimer, accessed on April 9, 2009, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
Page 5 
submitted about the e-competition states that its purpose "is to bring young artists, with the promise of lasting 
. . . careers, to the public's attention." The information about the Hong Kong competition indicates that it 
views itself as a "prize winners' competition" in that it "attract[s] a large number of first prize winners from 
other major international piano competitions." Like the awards singled out by counsel, the petitioner failed to 
submit information as to how these awards constitute awards for excellence in the field. In addition, even in 
those competitions that were not defined by the age of the competitors, the petitioner presented no evidence to 
show that winning or placing in any of these competitions conveys national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets 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. 
In general, in order for published material to meet ths criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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.2 
The petitioner submitted the following articles primarily about her: "[The Petitioner] Wins the JaCn Prize in a 
landslide," published in Diario Jaen on April 29, 2006; "Israeli [The Petitioner] wins the Maria Canals piano 
competition," published in El Pais on March 25, 2003; an untitled piece appearing in the June 19, 2006 
Variaciones; and "[The Petitioner] wins the 'Premio Jaen,"' published in the April 24, 2006 Ideal. The 
petitioner submitted no information about these publications to indicate that they are professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Instead, the name of Diario Jaen indicates that it serves a particular 
locality. 
The petitioner submitted other articles that mentioned her but were not primarily about her: "Competition 
Winners," published in JulyIAugust 2003 Piano; "48" 'JaCn Prize' International Piano Competition The List 
of the Pianists," published in the June 2006 Ritmo; "The Economic Society Selects the JaCn Prize winner," 
published in the October 2006 Diario Jaen; "Performers from five countries take part at the 'Young Pianists' 
Festival," published in the June 27, 2003 La Provincia; "The Auditorium receives a 'Romantic' Festival of 
Young Pianists," published in the June 27, 2003 La Gaceta; "Eight performers participate at the 'Young 
Pianists' Festival," published in the June 14, 2003 Canarias7; "Piano-e-Competition Crowns Second 
Winner," published in the Summer 2004 Accent; "Young pianists from Korea, Israel, China, Russia and Japan 
will perform at the 13" to 2oth of June in this first edition," published in the June 2006 Melomano For 
example, the article in Piano lists three different pianists who won competitions and the article in Ritmo 
reports on the competition as a whole. In any case, no information was submitted about any of these 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
publications to show that they constitute professional or major trade publications or other major media. On 
appeal, counsel states that these two publications are professional publications, however, no evidence was 
submitted to support this assertion such as circulation statistics. Without documentary evidence to support the 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute 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). 
In light of the above, the petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
Although we would normally consider the numerous letters of recommendation under this criterion, counsel 
instructs us to consider them instead as comparable evidence since "concert pianists do not make original 
artistic contributions of major significance to the field of music since they generally play works of composers, 
most of whom have been deceased for over 100 years. They are more concerned with playing the pieces 
perfectly and interpreting the music to bring out the best in the composition." Accordingly, we will not 
discuss the letters under this criterion, for which the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her numerous performances including, but 
not limited to, the competitions discussed under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.3(h)(3)(i). This criterion relates to visual 
artists, such as sculptors and painters. Regardless, frequent performances are intrinsic to the music 
profession. Duties or activities which nominally fall within a given criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent to the occupation itself. In the performing 
arts, national or international acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but 
rather by attracting a substantial national or international audience. The record includes no evidence showing 
that the petitioner has attracted such a following. The regulations establish separate criteria, especially for 
those whose work is in the performing arts. The petitioner failed to show that she was either the main 
attraction at any of the exhibitions or showcases or her participation was otherwise indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel states that we should consider the letters of recommendation under the comparable 
evidence provisions. He reasons that this would be appropriate as "at least three of the recognized categories 
of proof have no applicability to the petitioner's field of endeavor." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(4) 
allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in 
this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In fact, counsel has 
already argued in this proceeding that the petitioner meets three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 7 
The evidence of record indicates that additional regulatory criteria can be applied to petitioner's field, 
including 8 C.F.R. $9 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (viii), (ix), and (x). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of 
the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, counsel argues that the petitioner's letters of recommendation should have been considered as 
comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4). There is no evidence showing that this 
documentation constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of her field. While recommendation letters can provide useful information about an 
alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for 
objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The 
nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, 
the classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a 
very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Although the letters submitted speak highly of the petitioner's abilities as a 
pianist, primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions 
of one's professional acquaintances 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). Review of the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. 
The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others 
in her field at a national or international level. 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 visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.