dismissed EB-1A Case: Pipe Organ Building

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 8 2015 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~%--Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 312015 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO). We will dismiss the appeal as abandoned and, in the alternative, on the 
merits. 
The petitioner seeks E-ll classification for himself as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts, 
specifically, as a reed voicer, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The E-ll classification makes visas available to 
individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The matter is now 
before us on appeaL 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts, in part, that he has established his eligibility for the petition based 
on comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). On November 25, 2014, we 
issued a request for evidence (RFE), in which we concluded that the evidence shows that the 
petitioner seeks to work in the field of pipe organ building and requested that he submit additional 
evidence that might further develop his reliance on comparable evidence. Specifically, we 
requested: 
• Comparable evidence that is either equivalent to any one or more of the ten types of evidence 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or that is of equivalent persuasive value, that 
establishes the petitioner meets the antecedent procedural requirements for the petition; 
• Evidence relating to the work the petitioner performed during the installation of a 
organ housed at the South 
Korea; specifically, evidence relating to the work the petitioner performed to resolve the 
temperature fluctuation issue; 
• Extensive' documentation that, when viewed in its totality, establishes the petitioner's 
"sustained national or international acclaim" and that his "achievements have been 
recognized in the field" of pipe organ building; 
• Extensive documentation that, when viewed in its totality, establishes that the petitioner is 
"one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field" of pipe organ 
building; and 
• If the petitioner disagrees with our conclusion that his field is pipe organ building rather than 
the single occupation of reed voicer as he discussed, evidence demonstrating that he is in a 
different field of endeavor, provided he does not narrow the field such that it includes only a 
1 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act explains that eligibility for the classification is established "through extensive 
documentation." Accordingly, whether a petitioner relies on meting three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) or 
through comparable evidence, the statute requires "extensive" documentation. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
single occupation. See Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222, 1230 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (holding 
that "field" is a broad term that encompasses more than a single area of medical specialty). 
We noted in the RFE that the petitioner had 45 days to respond, and informed the petitioner that his 
failure to respond is a ground for dismissal of the appeal without further discussion. 
We did not receive a response from either . the petitioner or his counsel. Accordingly , we will 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal due to abandonment. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14), (15). In the 
alternative, we dismiss the appeal because, while the record confirms that the petitioner 
demonstrates a unique talent, the petitioner has not sufficiently established his eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate his sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Finally, 
where a petitioner demonstrates that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to 
his occupation, he may submit comparable evidence. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the original contributions of major significance 
criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading and critical role criterion 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In addition, the petitioner asserts that he has 
submitted comparable evidence to establish his eligibility, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). We determined that the petitioner successfully demonstrated that the eligibility 
standards under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation 
as a reed voicer.3 Once the petitioner has demonstrated that the standards do not readily apply, 
however, the next question is whether the evidence on which he relies is comparable to the evidence 
otherwise required by the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we issued the RFE, 
requesting evidence (listed above) that might serve as comparable evidence or help demonstrate how 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence . 
3 According to 1 a foreign correspondent for 
[A reed voicer makes] the tonal quality of a given reed stop consistent throughout its range of however 
many octaves, and mak[es] it fit in with the ensemble of the hundreds or thousands of other pipes in 
the organ . He does that by adjusting the curve of the brass tongue, and making adjustments to the 
resonator . It is painstaking work requiring close listening, mechanical aptitude, and a sense of how to 
make a pike, a stop, and all the stops in the organ work together as a work of art. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
evidence already in the record is comparable to the objective evidence required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)(-(x). The petitioner did not respond to the RFE. 
While the existing record shows that the petitioner is a talented reed voicer who has some 
recognition in the field, the petitioner has not established that he has satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), at least three of the ten 
types of evidence listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence establishing his 
eligibility as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
At the outset, the petitioner has not asserted or shown tlu·ough his evidence that he is the recipient of 
a major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as 
initial evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence listed under the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) or comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4) to satisfy the threshold evidentiary requirements. 
Next, we examine the two threshold criteria that the petitioner asserts he satisfies. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient?fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contribution s of major sign?ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the criterion of original contributions of major 
significance. Relying on reference letters, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on 
the "excellent work [he has done at] J" The references confirm that the petitioner is 
talented and respected, having worked on major organ projects . Although the record includes a 
number of reference letters, all praising the petitioner 's ability and experience as a reed voicer, these 
letters do not specifically identify what the petitioner has done that is original or that constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the field, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
According to Senior Executive Producer, 
the petitioner 's work at involves continuing the company 's expertise in pipe organ 
building. Specifically, Mr. states that "[t]hough several different individuals (including 
himself) 
have been involved with reed pipes during [the last half a century], 
uniformly high standards have been reliably maintained , and [the petitioner]'s work fits right into the 
expected tradition of qualify and character." A continuation of a company 's expertise in pipe 
organ building, while notable, is not indicative of the petitioner 's original contribution of major 
significance in the field. Rather, this evidence contributes to our determination that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for this company, discussed below. 
The record also includes several reference letters provided on the petitioner 's behalf that contain 
similar language when describing the petitioner's training and accomplishments in the field of pipe 
organ building. For example, President of states: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner]'s outstanding training began with an exhaustive and comprehensive 
apprenticeship in his native with . This 
education has given him a unique insight into every aspect of the organbuilding trade: 
fine woodworking, pipemaking , and reed voicing. [The petitioner]'s skills represent a 
unique combination of disciplines found in one individual. His talent is what 
attracted him to I I attention, and with [] further training, [the petitioner] 
has proven himself to be an extremely valuable asset to I I" 
Artistic Director Emeritus , _ _ Tennessee; 
. Professor of Organ, Church Music Department, College of Music, · 
in South Korea; and Associate Professor of Organ, 
all provide similar assertions . 
These letters confirm the petitioner's unique training, talent, and value to his employer, which we do 
not question. At issue under this particular criterion, however, is whether the petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance in the field. The letters from colleagues in the same or related 
fields do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field. While probative of the petitioner's talents, the letters are 
ultimately insufficient to establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part , 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered . USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron lnt '!, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. See also Visinscaia v. 
Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding the AAO's decision to give minimal 
weight to letters that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence showing that when voicing a organ in South Korea 
he faced a temperature fluctuation issue that other reed voicers might not have faced. Recognizing 
that this incident may possibly present evidence of an original contribution of major significance to 
the field, we issued an RFE seeking specific evidence relating to the work the petitioner perf01med 
during the installation of this organ and the work the petitioner performed to resolve the temperature 
fluctuation issue. As noted, however, the petitioner did not respond to our RFE. 
Accordingly , while the evidence attests to the petitioner 's talent, the petitioner has not presented 
evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. The record supports this assertion. For 
example , according to Mr. the petitioner is "a master at the art of reed voicing, and 
depend[s] on him and entrust[s] him to work his magic on almost every organ that [it has] 
produced in the past eight years." According to _ Chairman Emeritus of the Board, 
, the "voicing of the organs has been crucial to success in achieving the special 
' for which the company is recognized throughout the world. [The petitioner] has played 
a role in achieving this distinctive sound in the reed voicing he has done in the 12 years that he has 
been with the company." The petitioner has also submitted sufficient evidence showing that 
. has a distinguished reputation. According to , Curator of the 
Lecturer in Music, IS 
"one of America 's most admired organ building companies ." According to Mr. 
organs (and their reed stops) are universally admired, and the quality of workmanship and tonal 
character is held in the highest esteem." Accordingly, the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of 
this criterion. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence of the display of his work at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases pursuant to 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) . On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the evidence he submitted in support of that criterion constitutes comparable evidence 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Given the unique nature of the petitioner 's 
occupation, we accept that the petitioner may rely on evidence that is comparable to the standards set 
forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). The next question, however, is whether the evidence on which the 
petitioner relies is, in fact, comparable. Accordingly, we issued an RFE in which we requested 
specific evidence and information that might develop the petitioner's reliance on comparable 
evidence. The petitioner did not respond. 
The evidence in the record does not show that the petitioner has submitted evidence comparable to 
evidence that would demonstrate he meets the display at artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record includes evidence showing ·that the petitioner 
performed his reed voicing services for a _ _ that is housed in 
The petitioner has submitted an online printout of events that the 
church hosted in 2012 for the inauguration of the organ; and a 2012 article entitled ' 
'posted on classical-scene.com, discussing the organ dedication 
recitals. The petitioner has also submitted evidence showing that musicians have played 
organs for which the petitioner performed reed voicing services in musical performances. Some of 
these performances have been broadcast in . , a pipe organ program, and 
recorded one perfonnance. None of the evidence, however , mentions the petitioner by name or 
credits him for his work on the organs. Instead the evidence provides information on the musicians 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
who played the organs and , the company that made the organs and that employs the 
petitioner. Artistic exhibitions or showcases serve as a means by which named and credited artists 
display their work, typically for public viewing. In this case, however, the petitioner has not shown 
that the programs of the musical performances credit the petitioner for his work on the organs or that 
the audience is otherwise aware that the organ represents his work. While we afforded the petitioner 
an opportunity to develop his reliance on comparable evidence and explain how the evidence is 
comparable to artistic displays of an artist's work or is equivalent to the evidentiary criteria in 
general, the petitioner did not do so. As such, the evidence in the record as it stands does not 
sufficiently establish that the petitioner has submitted comparable evidence. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence of a 
one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or at least three of the ten types of evidence alternatively listed under that subsection, 
or, in the alternative, comparable evidence establishing his eligibility as permitted under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4). As such, we do not proceed to a final determination that considers all of the evidence 
in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating 
that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and 
(2) "that [he] has sustained national or international acclaim and that his ... achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20 (stating that only when the initial regulatory requirements are met does USCIS proceed to a 
"final merits determination"). The appeal must accordingly be dismissed. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, vvith 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. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as abandoned. In the alternative, the appeal is dismissed on 
the merits.