dismissed EB-1A Case: Singing

U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
• d deleted to U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying ata Officeof AdministrativeAppeals(AAO)
vent Clearly unWarranteÒ 20 MassachusettsAve., N.W., MS 2090
enofpersonalprivacy gi"M°e2d@'°
s and Immigration
PUBLIC COPY services
FILE: Office:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date: DEC 2 3 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office thatoriginally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishtohaveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideror amotiontoreopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with afeeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe
filedwithin30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asanalien
of extraordinaryability in thearts. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthe
requisiteextraordinaryability throughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor international
acclaim.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof such an award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x).
Thepetitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidenceto establishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,counselarguesthat thepetitionermeetsat leastthreeof theten regulatorycategoriesof
evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)andthatshesubmittedcomparableevidenceof her extraordinary
ability. Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,weupholdthedirector'sdecision.
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.-- Visasshallfirst be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho are
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
field throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101®'Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991). Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonly
to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop of thefield of endeavor.
Id. and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatanaliendemonstratehisor hersustainedacclaim
andtherecognitionof his or her achievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimandachievementsmustbe
establishedeither through evidenceof a one-time achievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)orthroughmeetingatleastthreeof thefollowingtencriteria.
(i) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin the field for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthe alien in professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto the alien'swork in thefield for which classificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andany
necessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on apanel,asajudgeof
thework of othersin thesameor analliedfield of specializationfor which classification
is sought;
(v) Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professional
or majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof the displayof the alien'swork in the field at artisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethatthealienhasperformedin aleadingor criticalrolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
Page4
(ix) Evidencethat the alienhascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield; or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby box office
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiled underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. March4, 2010).
Althoughthe court upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the court took issuewith the
AAO's procedurefor evaluatingevidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion.1 With
respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmay
haveraisedlegitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo
criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id.
The court statedthat the AAO's approachrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"asthecorollaryto
thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhas submittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha "levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof
that small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),and "that the alien has sustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).Only aliens whose achievementshave garnered"sustained
national or internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa.
8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119- 1120.
Thus, Kazarian setsforth a two-part approachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then, if
qualifyingunderthreecriteria,consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewing
ServiceCenterdecisions,theAAO will applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsde
novoreview,theAAO will conducta new analysisif the directorreachedhis or her conclusionby
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor
evidentiaryrequirementsbeyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
using a one-stepanalysisratherthan the two-stepanalysisdictatedby the Kazarian court. An
applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybedenied
by theAAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitial
decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.
2001),aff'd,345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir. 2004)
(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewon adenovobasis).
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition,filed on March9, 2009,seeksto classifythepetitionerasan alienwith extraordinary
abilityasasinger.
Documentationof thealien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor
In his decision,thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerestablishedeligibility undertheregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).Thedirectordid not specificallyaddresstheevidenceon whichhebasedhis
conclusion.Uponreview,wefind thedirector'sdecisionmustbewithdrawn.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein the
field of endeavor[emphasisadded]." A review of the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the
petitionerreflectsthatthepetitionerreceiveda diplomafor the singer for singingin a charity
concertbenefittingtheorphansof thecity of Moscow,acertificatefor thefirst "reward"from theFirst
InternationalContest"SeaSongs2007" for a certificatefor the
dated 2007, and a certificate from the III International Competition of the Songs "Eastern
Bazaar"for third placeawardedto
On appeal,counselsubmittedanEnglishtranslationof a powerof attorneydocumentwhichstateson
its face that it is a "translation from Russianto English." The document statesthat the petitioner's
stagenameis On appealcounselstatesthatthisdocumentis evidencethatthepetitionerused
the alias The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)requiresthat "[a]ny documentcontaining
foreign languagesubmittedto USCIS shall be accompaniedby a full English languagetranslation
whichthetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthathe
or sheis competentto translatefrom theforeignlanguageinto English." In addition,theregulationat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requiresthat such evidenceinclude "any necessarytranslation." The
petitionerfailed to submita certified Englishlanguagetranslationof the documentandassuchshe
failed to comply with 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(3),(4), and204.5(h)(3)(iii),therefore,the AAO cannot
accordanyweightto this evidence.Thepetitionerhastheburdenof provingthatshewasin factthe
Page6
personwho usedtheassumedname. Thepetitionerhasnot providedevidencethatestablishesthatshe
usedthe assumednameandtherefore,theAAO cannotconfirmthatthepetitionerreceivedtheawards
andprizesin the recordof proceeding. Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe claim, the
assertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. The unsupportedassertionsof
counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matter
of Laureano,19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA
1980).
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein the
field of endeavor." It is the petitioner'sburdento establisheligibility for every elementof this
criterion. Not only mustthe petitionerdemonstrateher receiptof awardsandprizes,shemustalso
demonstratethatthoseawardsandprizesarenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellence.In
other words, the petitioner must establishher awards and prizes are recognizednationally or
internationallybeyondtheawardingentities.
Notwithstanding,evenif we concludedthatthepetitionerestablishedthat shereceivedtheseawards,
thepetitionerfailed to submitanydocumentationestablishingthatthe awardsarerecognizedbeyond
the awardingentities. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)specifically
requiresthat the petitioner's awardsbe nationally or intemationally recognizedin the field of
endeavor,andit is her burdento establisheveryelementof this criterion. In this case,thereis no
evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner'sawardsare tantamountto nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor.
Therecordof proceedingcontainsa translationof the official regulationsfor the SeaSongscontest.
Theregulationsstatethat the goal of the contestis the "support,developmentandpopularizationof
modernEuropeanmusic,discoveryandsupportof talentedcontestants,improvementsin the art of
singing,andthewideningof theartcontacts."Theregulationsstatethatthecontestis limited to those
ages 18 - 35 years old and the first prize is $8,000.00.2 The AAO notes that the certificate in the
record states that the 2007 contest was the first year that the contest took place. The record also
containsa documentdiscussinga futurecontestin 2008but thereis not evidencethat sucha contest
took placein 2008. We arenot persuadedthatanawardin a contestthattook placeonetime with no
indication that the contestis still in existencequalifies as a nationally or internationallyrecognized
awardor prize.
Therecordof proceedingalsocontainstherulesfor the 15th"PearlParadise"competition. Therules
statethatthepurposeof thecompetitionis to:
search[for] talentedauthors,performers,bands,working in the genresof modernpopular
2Althoughthetranslationincludesthedollarsign,thetranslationis notclearasto whethertheprize
moneyis in U.S. dollarsor in anothercurrency.
Page7
songandinstrumentalmusicto assisttheircreativedevelopmentandcreatenewdirectionsin
apopularsongandinstrumentalmusic,alsowith thepurposeof developmentof themodern
Ukrainian[illegible] songandof strengtheningof creativerelationsbetweenperformersand
collectivesof Ukraine,co-operationanddialogbetweenculturesof nearandfar abroad.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial aboutthealien in professionalor major tradepublications or other
major media,relating to thealien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought.
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any
necessarytranslation.
A review of the director'sdecisionreflectsthat he found that the petitioner'ssubmissionof articles
failedto establisheligibility for thiscriterion. Wenotethatthepetitionerdid notaddressor contestthe
decisionof thedirectoron appeal.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterialabout
thealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'swork
in thefield for which classificationis sought." In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis
criterion, it must be primarily aboutthe petitionerand, as statedin the regulations,be printed in
professionalor majortradepublicationsorothermajormedia.To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublication
shouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchastheNewYork
Times,nominallyservea particularlocality but would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significant
nationaldistribution,unlike smalllocal communitypapers3 Furthermore,the plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat"[s]uch evidenceshallincludethe title, date,and
authorof thematerial."
Therecordcontainscopiesof thefollowing:
1. TheProducer'sCenterwebsiteCollectionof RussianBeautiful listing 17singersincluding
assecondonthelist;
2. TheProducer'sCenterwebsitelisting songsfor downloading;
3. The Queenwebsitelisting performanceso w ich, thepetitioneris in four scheduledperformances
fromFebruary24- 25,2005;
4. "TheHitsof the'Queen'in Kaluga,"Vest(December21,2006);
5. "TheMiracleof the'Queen'in Kaluga,"Metsenat(December8,2006);
6. "TheNewLife of thegroupQueenandFreddyMercury,"VotTak(September2006);
3 ÊVenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the
article. For example,anarticlethatappearsin theWashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributed
only in FairfaxCounty,Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutside
of thatcounty.
Page8
7. "KalugaListenedto 'Queen'Live";
8. '"The Bohemians':FromKalugato Rublevka";
9. TheMoscowDramaticalTheatre"Modern"website;
10. "NewYearwith thestarsof MoscowMusical'NotreDomDeParis'";
11.TourwithC.CCatch;and
12. "Ticketsfor theLittle BearElka."
In orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthiscriterion,it mustbeprimarilyaboutthepetitionerand,as
statedin theregulations,be printedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Items1, 7, and11do not mentionthepetitioner.4Althoughtherestof thepublicationsmentionthe
petitioneror thesepublicationsarenotaboutthepetitionerandmentionherasaparticipantor
performer.Thetranslationfor item 8 statesthatthepetitioneris only photographed.Photographsdo
not meetthe plain languageof the regulationwhich refersto written materialrequiringa title and
authorof thematerial.
Therecordof proceedingcontainsno evidencethattheProducer'sCenterwebsite,theQueenwebsite,
or theMoscowDramaticalTheatre"Modern"areconsideredmajormedia. Therecordof proceeding
containsevidencethatVestandMezenatmagazinesarepublishedin Kaluga,Russia5 timesperweek
andhavean averageof 6,000to 11,000readers. The recordalsocontainsevidencethat Vot Tak
magazineis publishedin Moscow,Russiaonceaweekandhas245,500readers.Thereis noevidence
to establishthatreadershipof theselevelsis tantamountto majormedia.However,therecordcontains
no evidencethatthesepublicationsareconsideredmajormediain Russia.Evenif thesepublications
areconsideredmajormedia,thearticlespublishedby do not includean
authorandtherefore,donotmeettherequirementsof thiscriterion. As thepetitionerfailedto comply
with the regulatoryrequirements,we will not considerthis evidenceto establishthe petitioner's
eligibilityfor thiscriterion.
Thearticlessubmittedby thepetitionerfail to reflectpublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto
her work as a singer. In fact, none of the articles areprimarily about the petitioner. Furthermore, the
petitionerfailed to submit any documentationestablishingthat any of the articleswere publishedin
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthis criterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsigm·ficancein thefield
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof thealien's
originalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof majorsignificance
in the field." In compliancewith Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain languageof the
4Seeabovefor discussionon
Page9
regulatorycriteria.596F.3dat 1121. Here,theevidencemustbereviewedto seewhetherit risesto
thelevelof originalartisticcontributions"of majorsignificancein thefield."
On appeal,counselstatesthatthepetitioner'soriginalcompositionsin themusical"TheLittle Prince"
hadaneffecton the"entiremusicalfield." Therecordcontainsa letterdatedOctober20,2009from
a Russianactressanda stagedirectorof the "Modern" theatresince1989.
states for morethan10yearsthe"Modern"theatrehasheldaprofessionalproductionof
"TheLittle Prince"featuringthepetitioner'ssongs. attributespartof thesuccessof the
musicalto thepetitioner'ssongs.
While speakshighly of thepetitioner'ssongsshedoesnot state,ascounselhas,thatthe
son shaveaffectedtheentiremusicalfield. Therecordcontainsoneperson'sopinion. Although
statesthatthemusicalwas"honoredby themostfamouscritics andgot excellentreviews"
andthattheplayis successfulenoughto havetoured,therecordcontainsno primaryevidenceof this.
Further, givesno quantifiablewayof measuringtheplay's successor importance.She
doesnot provi e, or instance,thenumberof performancesfor thepast10years,theamountthatthe
musicalhasgrossed,or thenumberof peoplewhohaveseenthemusical.Thisregulatorycriterionnot
only requiresthat the petitionermakeoriginal contributions,the regulatorycriterion alsorequires
thosecontributionsto be significant. We arenot persuadedby a vagueandsolicitedletterthatdoes
notexplainhowthepetitioner'scontributionshaveinfluencedthefield.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
In hisdecision,thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerestablishedeligibility undertheregulationat8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).Thedirectordidnotspecificallyaddresstheevidenceonwhichhebasedhis
conclusion. Upon review, we find that the director's decision must be withdrawn.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]videncethatthealienhas
performedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguished
reputation[emphasisadded]."At issuefor thiscriterionarethepositionthepetitionerwasselectedto fill
andthereputationof theentitythatselectedher. In abrieffiled with theFormI-140,counselstatedthat
thepetitionerperformedasthe"femaleleadin theinternationallyknowntheatricalmusical,Queen's'We
Will Rock You.'" The recordcontainsan April 20, 2004contractwith a partial translationfor the
musical"We Will Rock You," what appearsto be part of a playbill without translation,a copy of
photograph,anda letterpurportedlyfrom datedFebruary16,2009. As notedpreviously,the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)requiresthat "[a]ny documentcontaining foreign language
submittedto USCISshallbe accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhich thetranslator
hascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthathe or sheis competent
to translatefrom the foreign languageinto English." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
Page10
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatsuchevidenceinclude"anynecessarytranslation."Thepetitionerfailed
to submita certifiedEnglishlanguagetranslationof thecompletedocumentandassuchshefailedto
complywith 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(3),(4), and204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore,theAAO cannotaccordany
weightto this evidence.A copyof thephotographis not evidencethatthepetitionerhasperformedin
aleadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation.
Regardingthepurportedletterfrom statingthatthepetitionerplayedScaramoucheandwas
oneof two principalactressesin theMoscowproductionof theQueenmusical"We Will RockYou,"
the AAO notesthat letterheadincludesa graphicof a starwith a copyof his signature
overit andthatthesignatureattheendof theletterdoesnot matchthesignatureon thegraphic. The
letter statesthat "due to the successof the Moscowproduction,this castcontinuedtouring all over
Russia." The letter doesnot provideinformationsuchasthe numberof performancesin which the
petitioner performedor the venuesin which she performedor provide other documentationto
demonstratethesuccessof theshow. Theletteralsostatesthatthemusicalhasbeenasuccess"around
theworld, includinglong runsin Japan,Germany,Switzerland,Australia,Spain,USA, Canada"and
for sevenyearsin London.
Counselalsostatedthatthepetitionerperformedleadrolesin themusicals"Cats,RomeoandJuliet,and
Metro." The only evidencethatmentionstheserolesin therecordof proceedingis an articleentitled
"NewYearwith theStarsof MoscowMusical'NotreDomDeParis.'" Thetranslationprovideddoesnot
includean author,whereit waspublished,or the dateof publication. It is not clearif the document
submittedis anarticleor anadvertisementfor therestaurant-cabaret"Mr. X."
While thepetitionersubmittedsomeevidencethatsheperformedin themusical"We Will RockYou,"
therecordcontainsno primaryevidencethatsheperformedin themusicalsCats,RomeoandJuliet,or
Metro. Going on recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof
meetingtheburdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm.
1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm.1972)). A
petitionmustbefiled with anyinitial evidencerequiredby theregulation.8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).The
nonexistenceor other unavailability of primary evidence createsa presumption of ineligibility.
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). As this criterion specificallyrequiresthe petitionerto submit evidence
demonstratingthat sheperformedin a leadingor critical role, counsel'sstatementsareinsufficientto
demonstrateeligibility for this criterion. The assertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence. Matter
of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506
(BIA 1980).
In addition,this regulatorycriterionalsorequiresthat the petitioner'sleadingor critical role be with
organizationsor establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation. As statedabove,thereis no
evidencein the recordof proceedingthat the petitionerperformedin the musicalsCats,Romeoand
Juliet,or Metronor doesthepetitionerprovideevidencethattheseorganizationsor Queens"We Will
RockYou" havedistinguishedreputations. TheAAO notesthatalthough notedthat"We
Will RockYou" hasbeensuccessfulworldwide,thelettersubmitteddoesnotappearto havebeensigned
Page11
by
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby boxoffice receipts
or record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
Onappeal,counselstatesthatit is notpossibleto provideboxofficereceiptsor salesin everycountryor
in everyfield. Counselstatesthat musicis often piratedin Russiaanddownloadedfor free on the
internet. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19
I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
As evidenceof thepetitioner'scommercialsuccess,counselprovidesa letterfrom
datedOctober18,2009. In his letter statesthathe hasbeen"successfullyselling[the
petitioner's],AKA his in compilationsentitled
statesthat thereis "greatdemand"for the
etitioner'smusicandthatthepetitioner'ssong hasbeen#1 ontheRussianmusiccharts.
alsostatesthathehasbeenin themusicbusinessfor morethan10yearsandthatit is
"nearlyimpossibleto find actualdataonCD salesin Russia"becausethemusicindustryfaces"excessive
piratingproblems." addsthatthe"CD salesareby far [an] inaccuraterepresentationof
anartist'scommercialsuccess." believesthatsuccessshouldbejudged"primarilybythe
incomeof thecelebrityandtheimportanceandfrequencyof theshowsthatthecelebritydoesperyear."
TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerhassubmittedno evidenceof herearnedincomeandmadeno claim
undertheappropriatecriterionfor highsalary.
contradictshimselfin his letterby statingthatontheonehandhehasbeensuccessfully
sellin thepetitioner'smusicandontheotherhandit is nearlyimpossibleto find actualdataonCD sales.
assertsthathehasbeenin themusicindustryfor morethan10yearsandyetheisunable
to providehis own salesfiguresfor thepetitioner's"successfullyselling"music.
On appeal,in addressingthiscriterion,counselsubmittedapowerof attorne withouta pertranslation
asdiscussedabove,acontractfor aletterfrom committingto
sponsoringa future record,a letter from attestingto the petitioner'sone-time
paymentof $5,000for herparticipation,andaninternetprintoutregardingRussianpay-scalefor artists.
TheAAO notesthattheprintoutdid notincludeacompletetranslationof thedocumentasrequiredby 8
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(3),(4), and 204.5(h)(3)(iii). This regulatorycriterion requiresevidenceof
commercialsuccessesin theformof "sales"or "receipts;"simplysubmittingevidenceindicatingthatthe
petitionerparticipatedor performedin aplay,hasobtainedfundingfor afuturerecord,or receivedaone-
time fee cannotmeetthe plain languageof this criterion. The recorddoesnot includeevidenceof
documented"sales"or "receipts"showingthat the petitionerachievedcommercialsuccessesin the
performingarts.
Page12
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatshemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, we must next conducta final merits determinationthat
considersall of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2);and (2) "that the alien has sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of
expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3). Seealso Kazarian,2010596F.3d 1115at 1119- 1120. In this case,manyof the
deficienciesin the documentationsubmittedby the petitionerhave alreadybeenaddressedin our
precedingdiscussionof theregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
As it relatesto theawardcriterion,theplain languagerequiresthatthepetitioner'sawardbenationally
or internationallyrecognizedin thefield of endeavor,andit is herburdento establisheveryelementof
this criterion. In this case,there is no evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner's awardsare
tantamountto nationally or internationallyrecognizedprizes or awards for excellencein the
petitioner's field of endeavor. Although the competitionmay be open to participantsof various
countries,suchdiversityof contestantsdoesnot establishthat a prize awardedby the competitionis
nationally or internationallyrecognized. The AAO notes that the rules for the Pearl Paradise
competitionlimit vocaliststo 18- 36 yearsof age. With regardto awardswon by the petitionerin
competitionsthatwerelimited by ageor experiencelevel,suchawardsdonot indicatethatshe"is one
of that small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Thereis no
indicationthatthepetitionerfacedsignificantcompetitionfrom throughoutherfield, ratherthanbeing
mostlylimited to afew individualsin anage-basedor othersimilarlylimited competition.USCIShas
long held that even athletesperformingat the major leaguelevel do not automaticallymeet the
"extraordinaryability" standard.Matterof Price,20 I&N Dec.953,954 (Assoc.Commr. 1994);56
Fed.Reg.at 60899. Likewise,it doesnot follow that a competitorlike the petitionerwho hashad
successin a competitionrestrictedby ageor non-professionalstatus,shouldnecessarilyqualifyfor an
extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the
regulatoryrequirementat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)that this visa categorybe reservedfor "that small
percentageof individualsthathaverisento theverytopof theirfield of endeavor."
While the petitioner submitteda referenceletter praising her songs,such a letter cannot form the
comerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. Further,USCISmay,in its discretion,useas
advisoryopinion statementssubmittedasexperttestimony. SeeMatter of CaronInternational, 19
I&N Dec.791,795(Commr.1988). However,USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefinal
determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof a letterof
supportfrom apersonalcontactof thepetitioneris notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay
evaluatethecontentof theletterasto whetherit supportsthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795. Thus,
the contentof the writer's statementsandhow shebecameawareof the petitioner'sreputationare
Page13
importantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby anindependentexpert,a lettersolicitedby analienin
supportof animmigrationpetitionis of lessweightthanpreexisting,independentevidenceof original
contributionsof majorsignificance.
Finally, we cannotignorethatthe statuterequiresthepetitionerto submit"extensivedocumentation"of
thebeneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Seesection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct. The
commentaryfor theproposedregulationsimplementingsection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providethat
the"intentof Congressthata veryhigh standardbe setfor aliensof extraordinaryability is reflectedin
thisregulationbyrequiringthepetitionerto presentmoreextensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for
lesserclassifications.56Fed.Reg.30703,30704(July5, 1991).
Thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencedemonstratingthatshe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohave
risen to the very top of the field." In addition,the petitionerhasnot demonstratedher "careerof
acclaimedwork in thefield" ascontemplatedby Congress.H.R.Rep.No. 101-723,59(Sept.19,1990).
Thepetitioner'ssubmissionof contractsfor performancesat localbusinesses,whichtookplaceafterthe
FormI-140wasfiled, is notindicativeof someonewhois apartof that"smallpercentagewhohaverisen
to theverytopof thefield of endeavor."Wearenotpersuadedthatanindividual,whoseprospectivejob
offersincludesingingat alocalrestaurants,reflectssustainednationalor internationalacclaimcompared
to an individualwho performsat nationalor internationalvenuessuchasstadiumsandarenas.The
conclusionwe reachby consideringtheevidenceto meeteachcriterionseparatelyis consistentwith a
reviewof the evidencein the aggregate.Evenin the aggregate,the evidencedoesnot distinguishthe
petitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Whilethe
recordreflectsthatthepetitionerpossessestalentasa singerandsongwriter,therecordfalls far shortin
classifyingthepetitionerasanalienor extraordinaryability pursuantto therequirementsof thestatute
andregulations.Althoughthepetitionerhasa contractwith therecordreflects
that sheis currentlyperformingat local arearestaurants,hotels,anddealerships.Suchjobs arenot
indicative of someonewho is recognizedand has reacheda level of sustainedacclaim. The
documentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstratethatthe
alienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentagewhohas
risento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
III. Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedherselfto suchanextent
thatshemaybe saidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto bewithin the
small percentageat the very top of her field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the petitioner's
achievementssether significantlyabovealmostall othersin her field at a nationalor international
level. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the
Act, andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petition that fails to comply with the technicalrequirementsof the law may be
deniedby the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin the
Page14
initial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,affd, 345
F.3dat683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereview
onadenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasan independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thatburden
hasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.