dismissed O-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 4 28M Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizens hip and Immigrat ion Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachuseits Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washim!lon. DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~v~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a Connecticut corporation formed in June 1985, is a religious organization. The 
petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 
10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i), as an 
alien with extraordinary ability in the field of business. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
in the position of Event and Creative Media Director for a period of three years. 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) and th.en considering the evidence of record, the acting 
director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in business. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that sufficient evidence establishes the beneficiary's qualification as an 
alien with extraordinary ability in the field of business, and that the acting director erred in her 
application of the law and her analysis of the evidence in this case. 
Extraordinary Ability in Business 
The sole issue is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien with extraordinary ability in the field of business, specifically, whether the evidence satisfies 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A), or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
A. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: "Extraordinary ability in the field 
of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one 
of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The sole issue is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary satisfies 
the evidentiary requirements at 8 C.P.R. 214.2( o )(3)(iii). A petitioner may establish eligibility for 
0-1 classification by submitting documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award in the particular field, such as the Nobel Prize . 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A). The petitioner does not assert and the record does not establish eligibility 
under this provision for a major award. Thus, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary ' s 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B), or, if 
these criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, submit comparable evidence under 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994); cf Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F. 3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010)( discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if quaiifying under at least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination). 
The petitioner claims to have met the criteria listed at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) subparagraphs 
(3), (4), and (5).1 In addition, the petitioner claims eligibility through comparable evidence under 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C). 
In denying the petition, the acting director determined that the evidence submitted did not meet any of 
these criteria. After careful review of the record, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility under any of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), it 
must be "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner has submitted one article from the website published on April 27, 2012. The 
article, is about a 
live band 
competition in 2012 in Malaysia, • , where the beneficiary acted as 
one of the judges. The beneficiary is briefly mentioned in the article. The acting director determined 
that the above-referenced evidence was insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). Specifically, the acting director observed that this article is 
not primarily "about" the beneficiary; rather, it is primarily "about" the 
1 We will not discuss the remaining criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), (2), (6), (7), and (8) 
in this decision. 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the 
article. For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is 
distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for instance, would not have significant national 
distribution. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
event. In addition, the acting director observed that the petitioner did not provide evidence 
to show the circulation of the publication, to establish that such publication is a professional or major 
trade publication or major media. 
The acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
petitioner did not contest the findings of the acting director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y 
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal). 
Based on the foregoing, the record supports the acting director's determination that the petitioner has 
not submitted evidence that meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification 
is sought 
To meet the fourth criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence of the beneficiary's participation on a 
panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization 
to that for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 4). 
The petitioner has submitted photographs about a live band competition held in 2011 and 2012 in 
Malaysia, _ and promotional materials from the events which 
briefly mention the beneficiary as one of the judges, describing him as a "professional musician." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from Chief Executive Officer 
("CEO"), a management company in Malaysia. Mr. stated that, based upon the 
beneficiary's reputation as a singer and musician, he convinced the beneficiary to serve as a judge for 
two seasons of the live band competition. 
However, performing in a live band competition is not an allied field to the beneficiary's field of 
endeavor of event planning. The mere fact that both the live band competition and event planning 
involve music in some way does not establish that they constitute the same or an allied field of 
endeavor. The evidence of record does not show that the beneficiary has ever formally judged the 
work of others in the same or an allied field, as required by the regulations. 
The acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
petitioner did not contest the findings of the acting director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y 
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Based on the foregoing, the record supports the acting director's determination that the petitioner has 
not submitted evidence that meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 4) 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field 
Under this criterion, the petitioner asserted the following: 
One of [the beneficiary' s] original contributions has been the creation and production of 
the largest Malaysian rock band competition and event, "Passport to Fame: The Battle of 
the Bands." In addition ... [the beneficiary) also planned and executed some of the 
most prominent, public, and successful concerts in Malaysia and the region ... Within 
the religious community in Malaysia and beyond, [the beneficiary] is considered an 
extraordinarily gifted and masterful event planner and manager ... In addition, [the 
beneficiary) has authored an extraordinarily unique and inventive worship team manual 
-the first of its kind in Malaysia- which has become the go-to guide for religious event 
planning and management in Malaysia and the region. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support from the beneficiary ' s professional contacts. We 
cite representative examples here. 
At the time of filing the petitioner submitted a letter dated May 2, 2013, from 
owner and CEO for , Malaysia, an event management company. Mr states: 
is the sole organizer of the • 
the largest live band competition in Malaysia. The idea for this competition emerged 
when [the beneficiary] and I sat over coffee and discussed the music industry in 
Malaysia. [The beneficiary) shared with me his vision for the concept of the 
which thrilled and excited me from the beginning. Knowing [the 
beneficiary) as a successful and highly regarded singer, musician, music event 
planner, I was sold .... 
[The beneficiary) persuaded some major music sponsors m Malaysia, including 
the biggest Malaysian Jusiness company, and the biggest 
Malaysian producer, to sponsor his event. In addition. rthe beneficiaryl 
attracted several other sponsors, including ... and 
~----~· .. , who covered our write ups, as well as 
[The beneficiary) carne up with the name, formed a team, and 
took the lead in organizing the tour (venues, logistic, promotions, sponsors & 
equipment). The promotion and publicity through [the beneficiary ' s] group of 
contacts (singers and musicians , recording and jamming studios, and music stores and 
bistros) resulted in 48 bands applying for the audition .... 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
As the competition became more successful, more sponsors expressed interest in 
joining .... The response anrl PvcitPmPnt caused the sponsors to request "Season 2" 
and the event was featured in . .. Thousands of people attended the events 
and shows .... 
After consulting [the beneficiary], we agreed to do the next season in exactly the 
format that [the beneficiary] had designed and structured. Season 2 was organized by 
my team simply because [the beneficiary] pursued his calling and had to travel to 
perform his ministerial duties. However, I booked him to sit in as a judge for Season 
2 because of the response from the public. The competition was an extraordinary 
success ... It has been a great loss, for me and my team, not having [the beneficiary] 
participate in Season 3 ... 
I have no hesitation in affirming [the beneficiary's] extraordinary abilities as an event 
manager, producer, and musician and certainly one of the best in Malaysia and the 
region. 
The petitioner also suhmiJted__a letter dated May 3, 2013, from founder and 
CEO of , Malaysia, a television production company. Mr. states that 
he has known the beneficiary for six years and states that the beneficiary "is an extraordinarily 
talented event manager and producer and musician." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter dated April 29, 2013, from 
Principal of the Malaysia, who states he came to know the beneficiary when he 
attended the school from 2010 to 2012. Reverend states that during the time the beneficiary 
was a student at the school, he also served as the school's worship leader, and that the beneficiary 
"revolutionized our worship department by holding auditions and training workshops both 
corporately and individually with musicians and singers." He also states: 
[The beneficiary's] special gift is team-building, identifying talent and stretching 
people beyond what they perceive are their limits. 
During the two years with the school, [the beneficiary] was absolutely invaluable and 
left behind an infrastructure to build upon. Among other things, he developed and 
wrote a worship training manual that we still use today. Because of him, we have 
audition, training and workshop procedures in place as well as practice schedules. 
Although Reverend states that the continues to use the beneficiary's worship 
training manual, the petitioner has not provided evidence to support Mr. s assertion that the 
worship training manual "has become the go-to guide for religious event planning and management in 
Malaysia and the region." For example, the petitioner did not submit letters from independent entities 
affirming their use of the manual. 
The petitioner further submitted a letter dated April 20, 2013, from , 
a Malaysian 
Mr. states that the beneficiary "has been my mentor for the last two years. He was my 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
worship pastor in He states that the beneficiary "is an extraordinary 
musician, producer, and event manager" and "also demonstrated he was a man of many talents by 
organizing and running many successful major music events." 
In the request for evidence, the acting director noted that the petitioner's evidence failed to establish 
that the beneficiary has made an original business-related contribution of major significance in this 
field. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted four additional testimonials letters as 
"comparable evidence," considered below under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C). The 
acting director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Upon review, the preceding letters of recommendation demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has 
earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he has collaborated and consulted, but these 
letters do not establish that he has made original business-related contributions of major significance 
in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 
(3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). While the 
petitioner is admired for his skills in the field of event planning and has worked on projects that 
benefited his clients, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in his field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on others in his field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance 
in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. Cf 
Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact 
in the field as a whole). Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has 
been unusually influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The acting director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
petitioner did not contest the findings of the acting director for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y 
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility 
The petitioner also submitted evidence under the "comparable evidence" provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). In particular, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's achievements of 
assisting in planning and managing the events of a 2008 campaign for state assembly of a Malaysian 
politician, organizing and managing the October 2012 golf competition of a Malaysian tourism 
company and managing the petitioner's March 2013 Good Friday Worship Celebration should all be 
considered comparable evidence. Additionally, the petitioner submitted testimonial letters regarding 
these events as comparable evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii) provides that an alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of receipt of a major 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or by submitting evidence to 
satisfy at least three of the eight forms of documentation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). While 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that comparable evidence "may" be submitted, in 
contrast, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii) states that an alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, 
education, business, or athletics "must" demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence meeting at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. It is clear from the use of the word "must" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), as opposed to 
the word "may" in 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C), that the rule, not the exception, is that the petitioner is 
required to submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. Hence, the petitioner must 
first establish that the criteria in paragraph ( o )(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation. Then, only if the petitioner is able to establish that the regulatory criteria do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, may users consider the comparable evidence. It is the 
petitioner's burden to explain both: (1) why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the 
beneficiary's occupation; and (2) how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence 
required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l) through (8). 
In the initial documentation submitted with the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility under the 
"comparable evidence" regulation but did not explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily 
applicable to the beneficiary's occupation. In response to the RFE, the petitioner claimed eligibility 
under the "comparable evidence" regulation because "[ e ]vent planners and managers do their work 
behind the scenes and therefore are hardly visible or known to the public" and therefore such 
occupations "do not result in press or awards, for example." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that 
comparable evidence is appropriate because "the 0-1 criteria listed in the regulations do not apply to the 
[b ]eneficiary's occupation," because event planners and managers "are hardly known to the public in 
general, and only those directly involved in event organization can attest to their role and contributions." 
While the acting director did not specifically address the petitioner's claim that it has submitted 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) , nonetheless , 
the regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is 
no indication that eligibility for 0-1 classification in the beneficiary's occupation as an event planner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
!'age '::1 
cannot be established by submitting documentation relevant to at least three of the eight criteria at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). In fact, as indicated in this decision, the petitioner has specifically 
asserted that it is submitting evidence that addresses three of the eight criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), specifically, at 8 C.P.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), (4) and (5). An inability to 
meet a criterion, however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation. Moreover, although the petitioner failed to claim any additional criteria, the 
petitioner has not documented that an event planner could not, for example, earn a high salary or be 
employed in a critical or essential capacity for an organization with a distinguished reputation. Where 
an alien is simply unable to meet three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(C) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
C. Conclusion 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at least three criteria 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Therefore, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 consideration of the evidence in the 
context of a final merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility under at least three of the criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
Therefore, a final merits determination will not be conducted? The petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in business. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought is with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not satisfied that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any 
future proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to 
conduct a final merits determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 
8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now US CIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).