dismissed EB-1A Case: Stage Management And Creation

Mcntifi':W ~1.'ltn dr1et l;d to 
j.J,·cyent der,::ly 1.UjiVal'ranted 
invasion of personal priVZlCY 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE:MA~ ,It 2.0\1 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachuserts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing 
such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion directly with the 
AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days 
of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on October 18, 2010. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on November 17, 2010. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the field of stage 
management and creation, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that the petitioner has not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
apIJeall, counsel submits a brief and the following evidence: (1) a November 12, 2010 list of 
a November 20 I 0 letter from ••••• ~!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I!!I! ••••• 
(3) online printouts about _a television 
anchor and reporter, and his television show, (4) online printouts about Nevada Magazine and the 
National Headliner Awards, (5) documents relating to the petitioner's 2008 salary, (6) FLC online 
Wage Search Results relating to the period between July 2010 and June 2011, (7) a November 8, 
2010 online article, entitled "Conference Call Scheduled to Discuss Results," on the financial status 
of_., and (8) documents counsel filed in response to the director's Request for Evidence. In 
her brief filed in of the instant appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's selection "as one 
of only Directors of Creation should qualify as a one-time major achievement in 
satisfaction of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)." Counsel also asserts that the petitioner 
meets the published material about the alien criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original 
contributions of major significance criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the display at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and the 
commercial successes in the performing arts criterion under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established his eligibility 
for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not shown 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, under the 
regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and he has 
Page 3 
not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the 
AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
1. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
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. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) 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 H.R. 723 
10Ist Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO, conducting 
appellate review on a de novo basis, finds that the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
showing a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or satisfied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and that, in the final merits determination, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and he has not achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3); see also Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aii'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); Soltane v. Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Director's Request for Evidence 
On appeal, counsel contends that the director erred in not issuing a second Request for Evidence or a 
Notice of Intent to Deny, and erred in denying the petitioner "an opportunity to respond to or rebut 
the [director's] argument with respect to [the petitioner's] qualifications as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in his field." The record shows that the director issued a Request for Evidence 
on September 29, 2010, noting repeatedly that "no evidence has been submitted with the petition 
whatever." Counsel contends that evidence was submitted along with the initial filing of the 
petition, but at the time the director issued the Request for Evidence, the director was unable to 
locate the evidence. 2 Counsel then submitted photocopies of the original evidence, and requested the 
director to issue a second Request for Evidence before denying the petition. 
2 The AAO has the entire record of proceedings when considering the instant appeal, including original evidence 
counsel filed along with the initial filing of the petition, photocopied evidence counsel filed in response to the director's 
September 29, 2010 Request for Evidence, and evidence counsel filed in support of the instant appeal. 
Page 5 
Counsel's positIOn that the director erred, however, is not supported by any legal authority. 
Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), provides that "[a]n applicant or petitioner 
must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit 
request .... " In other words, the petitioner has the burden of submitting all necessary evidence 
showing eligibility when filing the petition, and the director does not have the burden of pointing out 
any deficiencies in the evidence in a Request for Evidence. This is further supported by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(ii), which provides that "[i]f all required initial evidence is not 
submitted with the benefit request or does not demonstrate eligibility, [the director] in [his] 
discretion may deny the benefit request for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request that 
the missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of time as determined by [the 
director]." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, it was within the director's discretion to deny the petition 
without affording the petitioner an opportunity to supplement his initial petition filing. Accordingly, 
counsel should have filed all necessary support evidence at the time she filed the petition in 
September 2010, and her failure to do so does not mean that the director must issue a Request for 
Evidence, requesting the missing evidence. 
Moreover, a petitioner may submit anything in support of an appeal, including additional evidence, 
which counsel has done in this case. As discussed below, the AAO, conducting appellate review on 
a de novo basis, has reviewed all evidence in the record, including evidence previously before the 
director and additional evidence filed in support of the instant appeal. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 
229 P. Supp. 2d at 1043; Soltane, 381 P.3d at 145-46. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. 
Although counsel did not initially raise this issue in her brief filed in support of the petition, on 
appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner meets this evidentiary requirement because he works "as 
one and that "[t]o be chosen as the creator of onc 
of the company s permanent an enormous honor that places [the petitioner] 
among only ten Counsel further contends that 
"[a]lthough [USCIS] will often consider an Olympic medal, Academy Award or Nobel Prize to 
satisfy the one-time major achievement criterion, there are many in the 
world than there are winners of those prestigious awards." To support his contentions, counsel has 
provided a number of documents, including (1) a November 12, 2010 online pri~t.o.U.t.· I' • 
•••• 1 approximately 150 creators, (2) a November 2,2010 letter tram 
stating that the petitioner has been involved with the creation and production of 
1 The petitioner does not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
•
:t~o~u~r~o~f~~;~~~~~L;a;s:v~eg~as shows over the past seven years, (3) a February 22, 2010 Time article, entitled ' indicating that the petitioner was ~:~~~-:::-::::-
production, and (4) a November 29,2004 Time article, entitled 
indicating that the petitioner was the chief stage manager of 
production. 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this evidentiary 
requirement. First, although counsel contends that the petitioner's employment as a ••••••• 
•••••••• is highly competitive, the petitioner has presented no evidence on the selection 
criteria for the position, the number of applicants who applied for the position or the applicants' 
qualifications. Second, the petitioner has not presented any evidence supporting a finding that being 
hired as ' constitutes receipt of an award, as required under 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Third, although counsel contends that 
there exist a limited number of , the evidence does not 
support a finding that the limited availability of a position means that the person who holds the 
position has won an award, let alone a major, internationally recognized award. Counsel appears to 
acknowledge the fact that the petitioner's position does not constitute an award, because counsel has 
not alleged that the petitioner meets the nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739 (Sept. 19, 1990). Congress' example of a 
one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. ld. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, 
stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only 
one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in 
the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the 
public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from 
the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
I1C1JllU'HCJ has not shown through his evidence that his position as one 
constitutes an award, let alone a major, internationally re(;og~ni;(ed 
award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. Barring the petitioner's receipt of such a major, 
internationally recognized award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be 
satisfied for an alien to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Page 7 
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 allthor of the material, and any necessary translatiolJ. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the published 
material about the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The director 
disagreed and found that the evidence submitted does not constitutes material about the petitioner'S 
work published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The AAO concurs. 
The petitioner has filed the following evidence in support of the assertion that he meets this criterion: 
(1) online printouts relating to Nevada Magazine and its 2008 National Headliner 
online 20 I 0 article, entitled 
posted on NevadaMagzine.com, 
stating that the petitioner, as !II~.~ •• !II •• "'. 
"concocted an experience that's both symphonic and in 
Time article, entitled "Into the Void," that is 
and that quotes the petitioner and notes that he was the production's chief 
stage manager, (5) online printouts about and his television show, ) a February 19, 
2010 CNN online article, entitled that includes an 
edited version of an interview between an (7) a transcript 
of a 2010 interview between and Larry King, in which the petitioner, 
production, was also interviewed and 
produ(;tion, (8) a July 12,2010 online article, entitled 
posted on news . Front 
Newspapers First printout, entitle:d 
M"rk,et" 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that Nevada 
Magazine, Front of House, National Post, Las Vegas Sun and Las Vegas Review JOllrnal do not 
constitute professional or major trade publications or other major media. The AAO further finds that 
there is no evidence in the record supporting a finding that the Hollywood Reporter is a professional 
or major trade publication or constitutes other major media. 
Moreover, the AAO finds that none of the published material is "about the alien," relating to his 
work, as none focuses on the specifics of the petitioner's work in the Cirque du Solei I productions. 
Rather, the articles focus on the productions with no reference, or limited references, to the 
petitioner's duties for those productions. For example, as pointed out by the director in his October 
Page 8 
18, 2010 decision, both Time articles mention the it is clear from the 
transcript of the Pebruary 18, 2010 interview that the petitioner 
UldVCU a minimal role . the interview. Indeed, the transcript shows that during this interview, 
approximately thirty-five questions, while he asked the petitioner 
only three. Like the two Time articles, the AAO cannot conclude that the Pebruary 2010 CNN 
interview is about the petitioner, relating to his work in the Similarly, the 
February 19,2010 CNN online article _in Vegas with mentions the 
petitioner's name once, and includes an edited version of an the petitioner 
was asked one question. The AAO finds that this online article is about •••••••••• 
_production, rather than the petitioner, relating to his work in the production. In addition, 
although the published material the petitioner has provided discusses a number o~ 
productions that the petitioner was involved in, none reveals what specifically the petitioner did in 
the productions or focuses on the petitioner. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
that the published material be "about the alien," relating to his work, rather than simply about the 
petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or 
professors pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(B) of the Act. As such, it cannot be credibly asserted that 
the submitted evidence constitutes published material "about" the petitioner, relating to his work. 
See generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Pinally, as pointed out by the director in his October 18, 2010 decision, although CNN television 
channel can be considered major media, neither the transcript of an Pebruary 2010 aired interview, 
in which the petitioner was asked three questions, nor an online article with the transcript of an 
edited version of an interview, in which the petitioner was asked one question, can be seen as 
tantamount to published material about the petitioner, relating to his work. 
Accordingly, based on the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that he has not presented evidence 
of 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. The petitioner has 
not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the original 
contributions of major significance in the field of stage management and creation under the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Specifically, counsel asserted that "[a]s a leading creative 
professional at for almost 15 years, [the petitioner] has presided over some of the 
most amazing artistic feats in the history of live ." Counsel further 
asserted that the petItlOner was involved in the creation of 
production, worked as the chief of 
in the design and direction of 
production, was involved 
production, and the creation 
Page 9 
of In his October 18, 2010 decision, the director found 
that the petitioner has not met this criterion. The AAO concurs. 
As supporting evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion, counsel points to several ple'ces 
evidence. Specifically, the petitioner submitted a July 12, 2010 online article, entitled 
posted on news magazine Front of House's website 
fohonline.com. The petitioner also submitted a May 4, 2010 letter from 1 who worked 
with the petitioner at but is no longer with stated in 
the letter that he appreciates the petitioner's "professionalism and that 
"[ e ]veryone knows he can be trusted to usher a seemingly impossible project from development 
stages to a successful premiere." In addition, the petitioner submitted a May 30 letter, with no 
specified year, from Dominic Champagne, a playwright and director in Quebec, Canada. Dominic 
Champagne stated in his letter that he had written and directed "three highly successful 
each one with [the petitioner] at [his] side" and that "[he] owe[s the petitioner] a 
debt of gratitude for the of these shows.4 The . further submitted a June 1, 
2010 letter from 
in his letter that the petitioner "master minded" 
production and that he "Iook[ s] forward to the next opportunity to 
mirror other [Warner Bros.] brands with his creative vision." Finally, the petitioner submitted an 
undated letter from who has worked for over thirty years in the entertainment 
industry. stated in his letter that "[the petitioner has shown uncanny ability to 
shepherd large multi-cultural groups of people and their requirements and 
concerns with grace and good cheer." 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not shown that he has 
made contributions that are either original or that are of major significance in the field of stage 
m,tnalgemf~nt and creation. Counsel suggests that because the petitioner is the director of creation for 
production, the production should be considered the petitioner's 
The AAO notes that although the Front of House article discusses what the 
production's creative team as a whole did, it fails to reveal what exactly the petitioner, as an 
individual, did in the production. 
In fact, none of the petitioner's evidence indicates what exactly the petitioner did in the production, 
other than noting his title of director of creation, a position not explained or defined in the evidence. 
In his May 4, 2010 letter, praised the petitioner's "intelligence, perseverance, 
curiosity[,] grace" and his "intimate knowledge and . "but provided no specific 
information as to what the petitioner did in the Furthermore, the letter 
makes no reference that anything the petitioner did production or any other 
4 The petitioner has submitted what appears to be Dominic Champagne's biography and curriculum vitae. The AAO is 
not considering this document as it is in French without an English translation that meets the requirements under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
Page 10 
25, 2010 letter, noted that the 
•••• one of the large complicated Las 
but he did not explain what exactly the petitioner did in the 
or . he did~al. In his June 1, 2010 letter, _ 
_ discussed the petitioner's work in the _ production in a general manner, and 
failed to identify what specifically the petitioner did or if anything he did was original. In his May 
30 letter with no Dominic stated that he worked with the in 
three - and 
applauded the petitioner's skills. He, however, failed to state if anything the petitioner did in these 
productions constitutes an original contribution. 
Furthermore, according to the color promotional material for the _production, many 
pe10pile were involved in the production. Specifically, is the production's guide and 
is the production's writer, co-choreographer 
llilili is the production's Artistic Guide. There are also thirteen creators and over seventy cast 
members. In addition, to the 2010 Las Vegas Sun article 
would have been Honored played a role in helping to shape 
the final version of the Indeed, in the same article, the petitioner is noted 
to have said that or role in fine-tuning the production." With the lack 
of evidence on what specifically the petitioner did in the and the presence of 
evidence that many involved in the production, the AAO cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's work in the constitutes an original contribution in the field of 
stage management and creation. Similarly, as the AAO lacks evidence on what exactly the 
petitioner did in any other productions, it cannot find that the petitioner's work in those productions 
constitutes an original contribution in the field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's evidence also fails to establish that his work in any of 
productions constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field of 
creation. Although in his November 2, 2010 letter, 
the "has made contributions to the success very O'e,HH"~'"'' 
" he did not state that the petitioner has made a contribution of major "~.1I111'-'1lIL 
if the AAO were to find that the petitioner has made a contribution of major significance 
to it would not find that he has made a contribution of major significance in the 
field of stage management and creation, which encompasses more than one business enterprise. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of 
qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section of the Act. As such, even if the AAO were to find that 
the petitioner's work in the for which he has provided the most extensive 
evidence as compared to his any constitutes his original 
contribution of major significance in the field of stage management and creation, this single example 
of a contribution is insufficient evidence of contributions of major significance in the plural. 
Accordingly, based on the petitioner's evidence, the AAO finds that he has not presented evidence 
of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field of stage management and creation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the di5play of the alien '.I' work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the display at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The 
director agreed, finding that the evidence shows that the petitioner was involved in a number Cirque 
du Soleil productions and this can be seen as a display of his work at an artistic showcase. 
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). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she asserted that the petitioner meets the leading or 
critical role criterion under the at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), because the petitioner is the 
and "his work as a stage management professional has been of 
the greatest importance to the creation of several of Cirque du SoleiI's other resident shows, 
including , In his October IS, 2010 decision, the director 
found that the petitioner has met this criterion, noting that the petitioner has been "a key person in 
direction of man y . " 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Although when counsel initially filed the visa petition, she did not address this criterion, she 
contends in her brief filed in support of the instant appeal that the petitioner meets the high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services criterion, because the . "earned 
approximately $150,000 per year in his position as which 
is "significantly more than his peers in Las Vegas." As supporting evidence, counsel points to 
(1) documents showing that the petitioner's 2008 gross pay was $156,183.70, and (2) FLC online 
wage printout showing wage information for producers and directors in the Las Vegas and Paradise 
areas of Nevada, between July 2010 and June 2011. 
The AAO finds that the petitioner has not established the high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). First, the FLC 
online wage printout relates to wages between July 2010 and June 2011. The petitioner, however, 
has provided evidence on his 2008 salary, not his 2010 or 2011 salary. Second, the FLC online 
wage printout is limited to the Las Vegas and Paradise areas in Nevada. As such, even if the AAO 
were to find that FLC Wage printout relates to the petitioner's work in the relevant year, the AAO 
would be without sufficient evidence to conclude what is an average salary of someone in the field 
Page 12 
nationally. Finally, evidence of the average wage in an occupation does not demonstrate what a high 
wage is in that occupation. Merely documenting wages above the average wage in the occupation is 
insufficient evidence under the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which 
requires evidence of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the 
field. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has commanded a 
high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field of 
stage management and creation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Evidence of commercial Sllccesses in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Although when counsel initially filed the visa petition, she did not address this criterion, she 
contends in her brief filed in support of the instant appeal that the petitioner meets the commercial 
successes in performing arts criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § As 
t vidence, counsel points to (1) a November 2010 letter from • I • • 
that discusses revenues relating to the 
productions, and (2) a November 8, 2011 online article, entitled "Conference Call 
Scheduled to Discuss Result," indicating that "Revenue at the--' a subsidiary of 
or 7.8%, due to higher royalty r~evenue from the 
show in Las Vegas which opened in February." 
Based on the evidence in the the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion. 
First, although stated that the revenue for the 
production was "in excess of $298,000,000," it is clear from the petitioner's curriculum vitae that his 
involvement with the production ended in January 2004, approximately five months after the 
production premiered at the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas in September 2003. 
As such, the AAO cannot find that the revenue of the production, in its entirety, may be attributed to 
the petitioner's effort as the production's artistic director or assistant to directors/production stage 
manager. Moreover, the AAO notes that the petitioner is not listed as one of the 
creators in its September 14, 2010 online printout, entitled 
at New York-New York Hotel & Casino." 
Similarly, the petitioner's involvement with the ended in December 2005, less than 
a year after the production premiered at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas in February 2005. As 
such, the AAO cannot find that the petitioner's effort, as the production's general stage manager, 
resulted in the revenue of the production, in its entirety. Moreover, the AAO notes that the petitioner 
is not listed as one of the 'on's creators in 14,2010 online printout, entitled 
at MGM Grand Las Vegas." 
Page 13 
The petitioner's involvement with ended in November 2006, 
approximately three months after the show premiered at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas in June 
2006. As such, the AAO cannot find that the petitioner's effort, as the production's assistant director 
or production stage manager, resulted in the revenue of the production, in its entirety. Moreover, the 
AAO notes that the petitioner is not listed as one of the's creators in its September 14, 
2010 online printout, Likewise, the January 31, 
2010 article, entitled Documentary 'All Together Now' Wins 
Grammy Award," does not mention the petitioner as one of producers or 
someone who contributed to the creation, development or staging of the production. 
Finally, the November entitled 
does not specified the revenue 
states that revenue grew due to a number of factors. 
November 2, 2010 letter does state that the production sold more than 350,000 tickets over 360 
performances and resulted in over $43,000,000 in revenue. The AAO has noted that the evidence in 
the record does not explain what the did in the and that 
the color promotional material for the many 
were involved in the As such, the record does not support a finding that the revenue 
from the in its entirety, should be attributed to the petitioner. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented evidence of commercial successes 
in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video 
sales. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or 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. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. s Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of. presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Saltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation 
Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.I(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 
19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USC/S, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to 
decide visa petitions).