dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Music

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JAN 1 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
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 a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
���::!trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. The petitioner states that he 
seeks employment as a "violinist/teacher/conductor," but his evidence heavily emphasizes teaching. 
His recent conducting work, for instance, appears to have been confined to recitals by ensembles that 
include his own students. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that 
the petitioner failed to establish eligibility both for the classification sought, and for the exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and copies of previously submitted materials. 
Previously, _ an accredited representative of the 
represented the petitioner in this proceeding. Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, advises that accredited representatives "must attach a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of 
Appearance as Attorney or Representative" to the appeal, as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 292.4(a). The appeal does not include this form, and there is no evidence that Ms. Pazmifio 
participated in preparing or filing the appeal. We will therefore consider the petitioner to be self­
represented on appeal. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. -Visas shall be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) .. . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The director denied the petition on two grounds: (1) the petitioner did not establish eligibility for 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, and (2) the petitioner did not establish that a waiver 
of the job offer requirement would serve the national interest. 
I. Exceptional Ability 
a. Regulatory Criteria 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) states that, to establish exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of the following: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing 
that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which 
he or she is being sought; 
(C ) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to meet the plain wording of at least three of the 
above standards, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (US CIS) makes a final merits 
determination as to whether the evidence demonstrates "a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2); cf Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121-22 (9th 
Cir. 2010) (meeting regulatory criteria in isolation is not sufficient; the record as a whole must establish 
that the petitioner meets the regulatory definition of the classification sought). 
Following a summary of the chronology of the proceeding, we will address the petitioner's evidence. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 1, 2013 . An 
introductory letter submitted with the petition indicated that the petitioner "has demonstrated 
exceptional ability as a violinist," but the petitioner did not address the regulatory standards for 
exceptional ability. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
On June 25, 2013, the director issued a request for evidence (R FE), indicating that the petitioner had 
met criteria (A), (B) and (F) listed above, but that the totality of the evidence did not suffice to 
establish exceptional ability. 1 The cover letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE 
summarized the evidence included, but this summary directly addressed only one of the regulatory 
criteria, (E), pertaining to memberships in professional associations. 
The director denied the petition on June 17, 2014, stating that the petitioner had attempted to meet 
criteria (A), (B), and (F), but had met only the first two. The director withdrew the earlier finding, in 
the RFE, that the petitioner had also met criterion (F). On appeal, the petitioner claims: "I may have 
met .. . all six criteria for exceptional ability." Below, we will address all six of the criteria, along 
with the evidence the petitioner has submitted and cited with regard to each of them. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The petitioner earned a Bachelor of Music degree from 
the plain wording of the regulation. 
[n 2002, which satisfies 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The director concluded that the petitioner had met this criterion with two pieces of evidence: "[a] 
self-written statement" and "[a] support letter from dated June 4, 2009." These 
materials, however, do not meet the plain wording of the regulatory criterion. The petitioner does 
not claim to have been self-employed, and therefore his own statement is not a letter from an 
employer. 
The petitioner worked for from 2001 to 2010, a period of less than ten years. 
The June 4, 2009 letter mentioned by the director is from director 
of human resources. The original purpose of the letter was to support a petition to extend the 
petitioner's H-1B nonimmigrant status. Mr. stated: 
[The petitioner] has more than thirty (30) years of highly relevant professional 
teaching and performance experience. Specifically, [the petitioner] was a 
with the orchestra of as well as 
Then, [the petitioner] was a and Teacher 
1 The petitioner responded to the June 2013 RFE on July 23, 2013. On December 9, 2013, the director reissued the RFE, 
stating "the evidence was never matched with the file and the evidence is lost," and requesting that the petitioner submit 
a new copy of the RFE response. The petitioner complied with this request on January 17, 2014. The petitioner's July 
2013 response to the June 2013 RFE has since resurfaced, and the AAO has incorporated it into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
with the 
he was a member of the 
== �== ==== === = == = ==== == �· Addit ionally , 
From 2001 to the present, [the petitioner] has been a 
Conservatory teaching 
Teacher at the 
Neither Mr. nor any other J . official claimed direct, personal knowledge of the 
petitioner's earlier employment in China. The officials also did not Qrovide any 
evidence from the petitioner's earlier employers. Without such knowledge or evidence, 
officials are in a position to attest only to the petitioner's employment at 
Mr. stated: ' .. continues to offer (the petitioner] the temporary, full-time 
position," but did not specify whether the petitioner's past employment was full-time. The petitioner 
himself described the . position as part-time. On Form ETA-750B, Statement of 
Qualifications of Alien, the petitioner stated that he worked 25 hours per week, as an adjunct 
professor at from an unspecified point in 2001 to April 2010. (An April 23, 2010 letter 
from Mr. informed the petitioner that, owing to the expiration of his H-1B nonimmigrant 
status, he was "no longer permitted to work at the college after 4/25/2 010.") 
Line 15 of Form ETA-750B instructed the petitioner to "[l]ist all jobs held during the last three (3) 
years"; the petitioner identified no other employment during that peri od. On his resume, the 
petitioner claimed several other "Work Positions" from 2006 to 201 0, such as ' 
but the 
petitioner did not claim or establish that these positions were independent of his employment at 
rather than ancillary activities linked to that employment. 
The petitioner submitted a translation of an undated letter from the _ 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that any document containing foreign 
language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the 
translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The translation in question is not 
certified in the required manner. The letter indicates that the petitioner "became a of [the] 
Ensemble in 1976," but specified no ending date. The letter does not specifically claim that the 
petitioner worked full-time, or even that his work with the Ensemble took the form of paid 
employment. Without this basic information, the petitioner has not shown that this letter is a letter 
from a former employer, showing that he has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation. 
For the reasons discussed above, the record does not support the director's finding that the petitioner 
has submitted the required evidence of at least ten years of full-time experience. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner's initial submission included an uncertified translation of "Credentials of Professional 
and Technical Posts," which, the petitioner claims, was issued by 
on May 1, 1989. The uncertified translation indicates that the petitioner "is acknowledged as 
a qualified grade 4 violinist by 
� 
for 
Liberi ans [sic], Musician [sic] and Artists on October 5, 1988. (Equivalent to the title of an assistant 
research fellow at college graduate level.)" In the absence of the certified translation required by 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3), this document fails to meet basic evidentiary requirements. 
Furthermore, the stated equivalency to "an assistant research fellow at [the] college graduate level" 
indicates a reference not to certification for a profession or occupation, but rather to a level of 
advanced training in preparation for future employment. Other exhibits are consistent with this 
interpretation. Several of the petitioner's professors in China attested, in letters from 1991 and 1992, 
to the petitioner's desire to continue his studies, and the record shows that he earned associate's and 
bachelor's degrees several years later, in 2000 and 2002, respectively. 
For the above reasons, the petitioner has not shown that the "Credentials" document constitutes 
certification for a particular profession or occupation. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The only indication of the petitioner's compensation is James Tometsko's June 2009 letter, 
indicating that the petitioner's "full-time position of Violin Teacher/Conductor" would pay "an 
annual salary of $32,074." The petitioner has not established that this salary demonstrates 
exceptional ability. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The petitioner's initial submission did not address this requirement. In response to the June 2013 
RFE, the petitioner submitted an untranslated hotoco y of a document that the petitioner identified 
as his membership certificate from the Without a certified translation, 
this document is deficient as evidence. The record also does not establish that the Academy is an 
association rather than some other type of organization, such as a school, that might also use the 
term "academy" in its name. 
The petitioner also, however, submitted a partial photocopy of the 2010 Teacher Directory of the 
indicating that he had been a "member since 2003." This 
document appears to satisfy the plain wording of the regulation. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The record contains no evidence that governmental entities or professional or business organizations 
have recognized the petitioner for achievements or significant contributions to his field. The 
petitioner submitted photographs and newspaper articles showing that some of his students have won 
local competitions, but the success of his students is not recognition of the petitioner for his own 
achievements or contributions. 
The petitioner submitted several letters, written over a span of six years between 2007 and 2013. 
These letters express general support for the petitioner but they do not identify specific 
achievements and specific contributions to the field. General statements of praise for the petitioner's 
"very strong work ethic" and being "an ambitious problem solver" cannot suffice in this regard. 
Also, many of the letters are not from peers, as the regulation requires, but from former students, 
parents of students, and other members of the community. Two of the letters are from members of 
Congress, neither of whom mentioned achievements or contributions, but instead called the 
petitioner "a great asset to the: music community." 
In the June 2013 RFE, the director stated, without elaboration, that "[t]his criterion has been met," 
but reversed that finding in the June 20 14 denial notice, stating: "The evidence provided is not clear 
to show that the petitioner has recognized achievements and significant contributions to the industry. 
His ability as a Teacher has been noted as well as the accomplishments of his students. 
However, this does not suffice to meet the criterio n." 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "I have letters from field [sic] by peers, governmental entities, 
processional [sic] and business organizations." The petitioner does not elaborate on this point. The 
director, in the denial notice, acknowledged the letters, but found them insufficient. The petitioner's 
assertion that he submitted letters, therefore, does not rebut or overcome this finding. 
The petitioner, on appeal, does not identify any specific achievements and contributions to the field, 
or any evidence in the record that would show or constitute recognition for those achievements and 
contributions. To be an experienced musician is not inherently an achievement or contribution, and 
neither is being locally well regarded as a music teacher. 
b. Final Merits Determination 
As stated above, the petitioner has claimed to have met all six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii), but the evidence of record is sufficient to meet only two criteria, at (A) and (E). 
Because the director granted a third criterion, (B), in the denial notice, we will briefly discuss the 
overall merits of the exceptional ability claim although we have withdrawn that third criterion. 
The petitioner has met the plain wording of criterion (A) by documenting a Bachelor of Music 
degree from which he earned in 2002 while he was also teaching there. This is 
undoubtedly a degree relating to the area of claimed exceptional ability, but the petitioner has not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
established that a bachelor's degree represents a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. The petitioner provided no evidence about the usual academic 
background or credentials of violin teachers and conductors. 
The petitioner's experience appears to extend back to the 1970s, which warrants some consideration, 
but the petitioner has not established how much, if any, of that experience took the form of full-time 
employment. Furthermore, some of his experience was as a musician in his own right, and other 
experience was as a teacher; the petitioner has sought to combine all of this experience together and 
claim eligibility as a "violinist/teacher/conduct or." 
Assuming that the petitioner's "Credentials of Professional and Technical Posts" does amount to 
certification for a particular occupation ("as a qualified grade 4 violinist"), the petitioner has not 
established the requirements to qualify for that credential, or that the ability to meet those 
requirements demonstrates a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
the field. 
The record indicates that offered the petitioner "an annual salary of $32,074" in 2009, at 
a time when the petitioner claimed over 30 years of experience in his field. This level of offered 
compensation does not readily suggest an exceptional level of expertise. 
The petitioner met the plain wording of criterion (E) by submitting evidence of his membership irt 
the and other evidence, if properly translated, might also establish 
membership in the Were we to assume that the Academy is an 
association in the petitioner's field, it would remain that the petitioner has not established the 
requirements for admission to membership in either of these associations. If, for instance, one is 
eligible for membership in the simply by being a music teacher in 
the area, then this membership would not demonstrate a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered among music teachers. The petitioner has not met his burden of proof in 
this regard. 
The petitioner claims to have met criterion (F), evidence of recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations, but he has not identified the achievements or significant contributions for 
which he claims recognition. The record shows that the petitioner is an accomplished and 
experienced musician and teacher, but success at one's job is not inherently an achievement or 
significant contribution to the field. The record indicates that several of the petitioner's students 
have won scholarships, but the petitioner has provided no evidence to show that the proportion of his 
students who have done so significantly exceeds that of other music teachers similarly employed. 
Likewise, the· petitioner's documented conducting work is limited to a small number of student 
recitals and seasonal concerts by local youth orchestras, and he has not shown that these events 
establish a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered among conductors. 
The petitioner has established a long career in the arts, and a reputation as a valued member of the local 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
cultural community in The evidence submitted, however, is not sufficient to establish that the 
petitioner qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. 
II. National Interest Waiver 
The remammg question is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise ... . " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now USCIS] believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test 
as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] 
standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional. "] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the 
job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. /d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. /d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. /d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. /d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. /d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, aliens of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks classification as 
an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The intrinsic merit of music and its teaching is not in dispute. To qualify for the waiver, however, 
the petitioner must also satisfy the remaining two prongs of the NYSDOT national interest test, 
concerning national scope and impact on the field. 
Ms. in her initial statement, explained why the petitioner seeks the national interest waiver: 
[The petitioner] is interested in using his skills to further the arts by having the 
opportunity to give private lessons and conduct ensembles that are comprised of 
deserving individuals who have demonstrated ability and dedication to excellence in 
playing As many of his letters of support state, he has a 
special ability to play music that is possessed by few musicians. In addition to his 
playing ability, his students report that he also has a special ability to help them 
achieve a higher level of excellence in their performance . 
. . . We would assert that [the petitioner] did have significant impact in the music 
field. He was, however, employed with an HlB visa that tied him to 
L and restricted his impact to the geographical area served by that college. You 
will note that some students who have studied there have moved into different states 
and have since extended his impact. If his [Forms] I-140 and I-485 [Application to 
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status] are approved, [the petitioner] wishes 
to support himself by accepting private students and to serve as conductor for all 
those who wish to employ him. He would then be free to widen his scope to a 
national level. 
The above statement is essentially an acknowledgment that the petitioner has not yet produced 
benefits that are national in scope, coupled with the assertion that the scope will eventually widen 
under future circumstances that do not yet exist. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or 
she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request. 8 C.P. R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). US CIS will not grant the waiver in order to create the conditions for the petitioner to 
meet the guidelines set forth in NYSDOT. 
While the petitioner's former students may have dispersed to other parts of the United States, he is 
no longer teaching them. Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that he has taught, or can 
teach, so great a number of students that the collective impact will be nationally significant, 
whatever their geographic distribution. 
A conductor might have a national influence, for instance by leading a nationally prominent 
symphony orchestra. The petitioner, however, has not established that he has ever conducted at that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
level, or that any prominent orchestra has sought his services in that capacity. The decision for him 
to conduct at a nationally significant level would not be the petitioner's alone to make, and therefore 
his own aspirations and ambitions in that regard cannot serve to establish that the petitioner's goals 
are realistic. NYSDOT specifies that the "prospective ... benefit to the national interest [should not] 
be entirely speculative." !d. at 219. 
The petitioner submitted several letters, describing his work in varying degrees of detail. The letters 
are all from current or former residents of the area, with demonstrable ties to the petitioner. 
Therefore, the letters do not show first-hand that the petitioner's work has had more than a local 
impact. We discuss examples of these letters below. 
Dr. 
Sister 
professor of chemistry at and an amateur violinist, stated: 
[The petitioner's] students have routinely been awarded top positions in music 
competitions and have been accepted in the best music schools in the country. No 
other teacher in the tri-state area (Pa., New York, Ohio) has achieved what [the 
petitioner] has achieved. 
He also has superior teaching methods that move students along faster (about 2 to 3 
ti �es faster) tha[ n] other violin teachers .... 
He has also had a great positive impact on the different community musical 
organizations he has been involved with. His participation has resulted in an 
improvement in the quality of the organization and a marked increase in the number 
of students participating. 
[The petitioner] has demonstrated his abi lity to affect the national interest by 
preparing and sending students to the best music schools throughout the country. 
former director of music department and l 
stated: 
Since [the petitioner] began teaching in the Conservatory, the number of his string 
students has increased each year. Wherever the students attend schools, they are the 
best performers in the groups in which they participate. They have been chosen to be 
concertmasters, section leaders and soloists. A number of students have won 
competitions, and some students have received scholarships from colleges and 
universities. 
The record contains newspaper clippings showing that some of the petitioner's students have won 
scholarships, but the evidence is not sufficient to show that the petitioner's students have 
consistently outperformed those of other violin teachers in the region. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)) . Furthermore, the direct 
impact of the petitioner's teaching ability is limited to his own students. With regard to the claim 
that the petitioner's teaching methods are superior to those of other techniques, the propagation of 
new teaching methods can have a national effect, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that other 
music teachers have adopted his methods. In the petitioner's case, the potential for impact has not, 
so far, translated into actual impact beyond 
a parent of one of the petitioner's students, acknowledged the local nature of the 
petitioner's efforts: 
It will be a devastating blow to the community and surrounding area of if 
[the petitioner] is not granted the necessary status to remain in the United States .. .. 
Unfortunately, the community of has difficult attracting talent such as [the 
petitioner's]. .. . We have a nickname of "I " .. . The arts in the 
community have deteriorated and need[] strengthening. 
As noted above, the petitioner, through his representative, has acknowledged that his work was 
confined to because of restrictions on his H-lB nonimmigrant status, and that he seeks the 
waiver in part to escape those restrictions and "widen his scope to a national level" rather than 
remain "tied ... to 
In the June 2013 RFE, the director instructed the petitioner to document "a past record of specific 
prior achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." In response, the petitioner 
stated that his "work extends benefits beyond our geographic location" because he has taught 
students from many different states, and even different countries. The record does not fully support 
this claim, and even then, the dispersal of a small number of students over a wide area dilutes rather 
than multiplies the petitioner's impact. 
The petitioner asserted: "American students respond well to my unique teaching method. The 
results indicate that my students learn faster; have a higher technique, and they achieve a hi her 
quality · of musical abilit y." The petitioner claimed that one of his former students, 
"has used [the petitioner's] teaching method" as a student teacher at 
and the , and "has received a Student Affairs Outstanding Service 
Award from .. . [the] 
� 
" A printout of Ms. . resume 
from the web site shows information about her student work. The record contains no 
evidence to show that Ms. has adopted the petitioner's teaching method, but such evidence 
would not establish implementation of that method at a nationally significant level. Information 
regarding the superiority of the petitioner's method is minimal and anecdotal. 
The petitioner's response included information about some of his students, such as a captioned 
photograph from the indicating that seven young musicians "performed in an 
awards recital at The petitioner identified two of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
musicians as his students. Another local newspaper article indicated that "about 100 onlookers .. . 
attended a concert" performed by "12 exchange students from sister city of China .. . 
conducted by [the petitioner]." 
Denying the petition on June 17, 2014, the director found that the petitioner had not established that 
the benefit from his work would be national in scope, or that he has a past history of influential 
achievement. On appeal, the petitioner claims that "(a] musician and/or Artist can not easily be 
compared to other qualified U.S. musicians and music teachers," but then makes just such a 
comparison, asserting: 
I have been living in this country for 20 years and teaching in New York and 
Pennsylvania. During this time I have demonstrated that my teaching is far superior 
to other violin teachers. I can say this because many of my students over the years 
have come to me after having studied with the other "qualified by training" violin 
teachers. Within a very short time these new students showed a marked improvement 
in their playing ability as demonstrated by their successes in various violin 
performance and competitions . 
. . . In short, my students have always won more competitions and they always have 
higher scores than the other teachers [in] the same area. 
The petitioner has submitted copies of five evaluations conducted by the 
showing scores of 26 and 27 out of 28, and 97, 97 and 
99 out of 100. These are clearly high scores, but the petitioner did not show that his students 
consistently ranked higher than others evaluated at the same time and at the same level. The 
petitioner did not document the scores of other students (either his own or those of other teachers), 
and therefore he did not show that the five documented scores are either (1) characteristic of his 
students' scores, or (2) superior to the scores of students of other teachers. 
The peti tion er asserts that even "the greatest violin teacher " began in obscurity before 
becoming "one of the most influential violin teacher[ s] of the Twentieth Century." This establishes 
that a violin teacher can become influential in his field, but this potential, alone, is not a basis for the 
national interest waiver. The petitioner acknowledges that he has been "in this country for 20 
years," and he has not established signific ant impact outside of Speculation that he will 
eventually achieve greater recognition has no weight as evidence. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner cites letters showing that some students traveled great distances to study under him, 
and that his results have impressed "even ... teachers who have music degrees from the best music 
schools." There is no doubt that the petitioner's work has impressed several of the people with 
whom he has crossed paths, but these subjective reports do not establish impact or influence on the 
field. To qualify for the national interest waiver, the petitioner need not be "one of the most 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
influential" figures in his field, but the evidence must rise above anecdotal and selective reports 
about the achievements of a handful of current and former students. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to 
the field of endeavor." !d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person qualified to engage in a 
profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on national 
interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest 
waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than on the merits of the 
individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver 
of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with 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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.