dismissed O-1A Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
hvmion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJe ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 09 2 19 5 1079 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
AUE 1 8 2010 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 110 l(a)(15)(0). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a private elementary school, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the field of education. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
music teacher for a period of three years. 
On October 14, 2009, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. Specifically, the director determined 
that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or at least 
three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary is currently in 0-1 status working for a 
different employer and as such was already recognized as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner submits 
a copy of the prior petition filing and asserts that "because the difference in petitioners is the only difference 
between the petitions, your most recent adjudication is essentially a RE-adjudication of the beneficiary's 
eligibility." Counsel cites to an April 23, 2004 agency memorandum from --"" 
-' -- which states that 
in matters related to an extension of nonimmigrant petition validity involving the same parties and the same 
underlying facts, deference should be given to an adjudicator's prior determination of eligibility.' Counsel 
further states that the director erred by determining that the evidence submitted does not satisfy the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and (5). 
I. The Law 
Section 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of 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 . . . and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability . . . . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
1 Memorandum of Associate Director for Operations, The Significance of a Prior CIS 
Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility of 
Petition Validity, (April 23,2004). 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 3 
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. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 4 18 18, 41 8 19 (August 15, 1994); 137 
Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 classification should be reserved only 
for those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession. The 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-1B prominent standard. Officers involved 
in the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" the classification by approving 
0-1 petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, - - INS, "Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 
and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thejel& of science, education, 
business, or athletics. 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: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 4 
(3) 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; 
(4) 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; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (0)(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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certieing to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability . . . shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the &ant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 5 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach recently 
set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
7253 17 (9' Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cf: 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, 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)." Id 
at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary 
to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The final merits determination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
Although the director's decision pre-dates the decision, AAO finds the court's two part 
approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for 
aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service Center 
decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than 
the two-step analysis dictated by the court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 6 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to several of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of his field or that he has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. 5 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
11. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a citizen of Singapore. The beneficiary's educational credentials include a 
Doctorate of Musical Arts in violin performance from the University of Connecticut (2000), a Master of 
Music in violin performance from the Boston Conservatory of Music (1990), a Bachelor of Music in violin 
performance from the New England Conservatory of Music (1988), and a Performer's Licentiate Diploma in 
Violin from the Trinity College of Music in the United Kingdom. In addition, the beneficiary has a teacher 
certification in music (pre-K-12) from the Connecticut Department of Higher Education. He has been 
teaching string methods at the middle school, high school and collegiate level for various institutions since 
1993. As a performer, the beneficiary has held the positions of concertmaster, assistant concertmaster, and 
principal second violinist with the Manchester Symphony Orchestra, Hartford Festival Orchestra, New Britain 
Symphony Orchestra, The Boston Conservatory Symphony Orchestra, and the University of Connecticut 
Symphony Orchestra. In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the field of education, specifically music education. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner submitted evidence to meet only one of the eight 
regulatory criteria for establishing sustained national or international acclaim at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
On appeal, counsel contends that the beneficiary meets at least two additional criteria, specifically, 8 C.F.R. $5 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and (5), and relies on the approval of a prior 0-1 petition filed by a different employer as 
evidence that the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
After careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the grounds for 
denial. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. In 
order to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability, the statute requires evidence of "sustained" national or 
international acclaim and evidence that the alien's achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor 
through "extensive documentation." The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's abilities have been so 
recognized. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. There is no evidence that the beneficiary has received any 
major awards in his field, and the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 7 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(~).* 
I. Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), the petitioner must submit evidence that the 
beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner stated that "[the beneficiary's] ensembles, bands, and orchestras have all 
received several platinum-level awards from music festivals around the country." 
In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted 2008 results from "Great East Festivals" indicating that the 
middle school string orchestra, middle school chamber strings ensemble, high school symphony orchestra, 
and high school string orchestra directed by the beneficiary achieved "Platinum" performance ratings from 
judges at the event. 
The beneficiary also lists the achievements of his students in his resume. The beneficiary indicates that his 
students won the Music Teachers National Association, Connecticut Chapter, competition in 2003. He states 
that a number of his students have successfully auditioned for the Northern Regional Music Festival, the 
Waterbury Youth Symphony, the Connecticut Eastern Regional Orchestra, the Connecticut Inter-elementary 
Orchestra, and Julliard Preparatory School. Finally, the beneficiary indicates that his students have included 
an overall winner and several first-place age-category winners at the Windham Regional Arts Association 
competition. 
In a request for additional evidence ("RFE") issued on August 19,2009, the director noted that the evidence 
submitted consisted of performance scores given to middle and high school students taught by the beneficiary, 
and that such awards appear to be local in nature, and were not given to the beneficiary. The director 
requested additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards the beneficiary received in his field of endeavor, including the origin, purpose, significance, 
scope of each award, the criteria used to nominate and judge award winners, and evidence identifying 
previous winners of each award. 
In a response dated September 24, 2009, counsel for the petitioner stated that "[blecause [the beneficiary] is a 
music educator, the best evidence to prove his achievements are the awards received from the students under 
his teaching." The petitioner submitted a letter from Mr. I-, the past president of the 
American Choral Directors Association, in support of its assertion that "the awards are prestigious." Mr. 
mtates: 
The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 8 
The Great East Musical Festival is a highly regarded institution that is attended by school 
districts throughout Northeastern America. Festivals such as NYSMA in New York, ACDA 
in Connecticut, and the Great East in Massachusetts serve to measure our music teachers and 
their students against a high standard of achievement. 
With respect to the judging criterion for the Great East Festival, he states: 
The Great East Festival's mission of supporting and evaluating school instrumental and choral 
programs is well-known among music educators. The standards that this festival upholds are 
of the highest order and as such, all musical ensembles - whether orchestras, bands or choirs, 
are judged, critiqued and coached by our most preeminent musicians. For example, last 
year's event featured adjudication by a college professor, a professional symphony conductor, 
and national mpresident, - 
[The beneficiary's] chamber and symphony orchestras consistently earned platinum, the 
highest possible award at this festival. . . . His orchestras performed at an extremely mature 
level with musical accuracy and style approaching the professional level. He achieved these 
stellar results at two very different institutions: Farmington Middle School with its affluent, 
upper-class clientele and Manchester High School composed primarily of underprivileged 
urban children. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted did not satisfy this criterion, as the evidence pertained to 
awards won by the beneficiary's students. The director observed that "this criterion clearly requires 
documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, not his students." 
On appeal, counsel contests this finding stating: 
The awards by the beneficiary's students should serve as a [sic] good evidence of the 
beneficiary's extraordinary teaching ability. Your office did not specify why students' awards 
can not reflect the extraordinary teaching ability of their teacher. 
In the music teaching field, there is no national awards [sic] given out to individual music 
teachers. Since national individual award for music teachers are [sic] not available, we 
believe that the Service should seriously consider the awards received by the students as good 
evidence to provide the teacher's achievements in the teaching field. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director that the evidence submitted does not satisfy this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulations requires the petitioner to submit documentation of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Counsel's 
unsupported assertion that there are no national awards for music teachers is not sufficient to establish that 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 9 
such awards do not exist. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence 
and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Although the record contains testimonial evidence 
from numerous experts in the beneficiary's field, none of them have commented on the existence of national 
or international awards in the music teaching profession, and the AAO cannot conclude that this criterion is 
inapplicable to the beneficiary's field. 
Furthermore, even if the AAO were to consider the awards achieved by the beneficiary's students, the 
petitioner has not established that receipt of a "platinum" score at the Great East Festival rises to the level of 
receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized "prize or award." Rather, the festival appears to be 
regional in nature. The petitioner did not fully respond to the director's request for evidence regarding the 
origin, purpose, significance, or scope of the festival and its awards. Mr. statement that the festival 
is "well-known among music educators," is insufficient to establish that middle and high school orchestras 
that perform at this festival at the "platinum" level receive national or international recognition. Although the 
beneficiary lists other awards and honors achieved by his students in his resume, the petitioner has not 
provided primary evidence of such awards or the beneficiary's role in the students' training, nor has it claimed 
that he meets this criterion based on the listed achievements. Furthermore, based on the limited descriptions 
provided, these awards also appear to be regional in nature. 
The AAO acknowledges counsel's assertion that the awards won by the beneficiary's students reflect upon his 
teaching abilities and will consider such achievements in the final merits determination. 
2. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejield for which classijication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields 
The petitioner initially claimed that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership in the 
National Music Honor Society -, which it describes as "an American honor society for 
undergraduate students, graduate students, and professors of music." 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was elected to membership in 1- in 
May 1998 by the . According to the evidence submitted, "[clhapters of the Society annually 
3 The AAO notes that a simple search of the term "music teacher national award" resulted in a link to the web 
site of the Music Teachers National Association's awards page, which indicates that this association awards 
both a Teacher of the Year Award and the MTNA Achievement Award to music educators. See "Awards 
Program," http://www.mtna.org/Programs/Awards/tabid/284efault.aspx (accessed on August 9, 2010). 
MENC: The National Association for Music Education, also has an annual awards program "to honor teachers 
who are exemplars of the best efforts in the field of music education." See "MENC Announces Recipients of 
2009 Teaching Music Awards," http://www.menc.org/news/view/press-release-menc-announces-recipients- 
of-2009-teaching-music-awards (accessed on August 9,20 10). 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 10 
extend invitations to membership in -to the highest ranking students from junior, senior, and 
graduate classes." The elections are the responsibility of a Faculty Committee representing the active 
members of the chapter. 
In the RFE, the director noted that the evidence submitted to establish this criterion suggests that - 
bestows membership upon top undergraduate and graduate students in music, rather than selecting its 
members from the top individuals in the field based on their individual achievements. The director requested 
additional evidence to establish that membership is chosen by national or international experts, and to 
demonstrate that the organization requires outstanding achievements of its members. The director also 
requested information regarding the current number of members. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for additional evidence did not address this criterion. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that - requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, or that its prospective members are judged by recognized national or international 
experts. Rather, the director concluded that election to membership is based on academic achievement, not 
outstanding achievement in the field, with elected membership limited to undergraduate and graduate students. 
Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. Academic awards and 
honors received while preparing for a vocation fall substantially short of constituting a national or 
international prize or award for recognition in the field 
3. Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the3eld. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted more than ten testimonial letters to establish that "[the 
beneficiary's] peers have the utmost respect and admiration for his outstanding teaching abilities." The 
petitioner did not specifically claim that the beneficiary has made original scholarly contributions of major 
significance in the field, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(5). The letters, while highly 
complimentary to the beneficiary and his abilities and accomplishments as a music teacher, did not address 
with specificity any original contribution of major significance in the field of music education. 
The letters submitted included a letter from .-, Professor at the University of 
Connecticut and Conductor Laureate, New Britain Symphony Orchestra. Mr. -stated that the 
beneficiary "possesses the qualities of an extraordinary music teacher and can demonstrate a seven-year 
history of extraordinary success in Connecticut," and that "he has had a significant impact on the lives of 
many students." He further states that the beneficiary's "education, experience and abilities are so unique that 
he can be considered in a class by himself' and that his "achievements make him an irreplaceable asset to 
music teaching in the United States." 
Lan Shui, music director of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, states that the beneficiary is "one of the 
finest music educators in the world," and "is now becoming a household name in the arena of music 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 11 
pedagogy." In support of this statement, Mr. noted that based on the beneficiary's success with students in 
Connecticut, "his reputation . . . has resulted in numerous job offers." 
Dr. 
 current Chair of Performing Arts at Kingswood-Oxford School, states that he met the 
beneficiary when they were both doctoral students at the University of Connecticut, and later recruited him 
for the position of concertmaster with the Manchester Symphony Orchestra. He further states that he knows 
the beneficiary as an "outstanding educator" because he has attended festivals where the beneficiary's students 
have performed. Dr. 
 describes the beneficiary as "one of the best" in the field of music pedagogy. 
, Professor at the a friend of the beneficiary's and 
member of his Doctorate Committee, summarizes the beneficiary's career highlights and states that he is "an 
expert in his field." She states that his "credentials, talent and personal strength make him deserving of a 
permanent visa," and that "our country will be greatly enriched by his teaching." 
Dr. , Assistant Superintendent of states that the beneficiary is "a 
superior strings teacher," "an extraordinary educator," and "a major contributor" to the middle school's strings 
program. She states that she considers the beneficiary to be "one of the top 1% of professionals in this field." 
, the former president of the 
 , states 
that she has worked with the beneficiary over the last ten years, and indicates that, as a teacher, he has 
received "the admiration and wholehearted support from every parent and student." She describes the 
beneficiary as a "true pedagogue" who consistently achieves "a complete change in sound production, musical 
line and expressivity, fine intonation and ensemble playing," from his students. 
asked her to write a letter in support of his application for an 0-1 visa. She states that he is "a valued 
colleague who is greatly needed in Connecticut." The petitioner also submitted a letter from :- 
Dean of the University of Connecticut's School of Fine Arts. He describes the beneficiary as "an outstanding 
and skillful musician, teacher and citizen," with "an enviable reputation as an outstanding artist and musician 
in the state of Connecticut and throughout New England." 
Dr. - Conductor of the New York City Ballet, Opera, and Philharmonic, states that he has 
known the beneficiary since 1994 when he was teaching at the University of Connecticut. Dr.states 
that the beneficiary is "an insightful and exemplary music teacher," who "seems to have a natural ability to 
maximize the capabilities and potentials of each of his students, regardless of their age, or their level of 
accomplishment." Dr. I describes the beneficiary as "an exceptional educator" and as "a colleague 
who is respected and beloved by the many students he has been a mentor to over the last decade." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from of the University of Connecticut's 
Community School of the Arts. He states that the beneficiary "is a very positive and encouraging teacher and 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 12 
his students show excellent progress." Mr. further states that the beneficiary's "dedication to education 
and excellence made him an integral part of our string program during his tenure" at the school. 
Dr. -, Professor of Music at the University of Connecticut, states that he served as the 
beneficiary's major advisor during his doctoral degree matriculation at the school. He states that he has 
observed the beneficiary's "meteoric rise as a pedagogue in public schools." Dr. indicates that the 
beneficiary "sets a high standard of music excellence and professional maturity of behavior for his young 
students." Finally, he indicates that the beneficiary is "an outstanding educator" who could be ranked "in the 
top 5% of the profession." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted letters from the two public school programs in which the beneficiary served 
as a music teacher. grade principal at Manchester High School, states that the beneficiary had 
"excellent rapport with all of his students," and a "comprehensive, deep and thorough" comprehension of 
music and teaching. principal of Irving Robbins Middle School, states that the beneficiary is 
"known for the quality of his instruction and the remarkable concerts given by his orchestra." She indicates 
that his teaching technique is based on developing strong technical ability and providing children with 
challenging music, and she describes him as "one of the most gifted teachers" with whom she's worked. Ms. 
states that the beneficiary's "knowledge of teaching far exceeds that usually found in music 
educators." 
In the request for evidence, the director acknowledged receipt of the testimonial evidence, but noted that the 
letters are all from former employers and individuals who know the beneficiary personally, and, as such, carry 
little weight in satisfying this criterion. The AAO agrees that these letters, while highly complimentary to the 
beneficiary and his abilities as a teacher and musician, fall significantly short of identifying an original 
contribution of major significance in the field of music education. The AAO does not question the positive 
impact the beneficiary has had on the lives of individual students and the music programs of schools at which 
he has taught. 
In response to the RFE, counsel stated that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion based on his selection as a 
lecturer/presenter/clinician in the National Association for Music Education's (MENC1s) in-service conference 
held at the Connecticut Convention Center in 2006. In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted a peer 
opinion letter from Dr. president-elect of Dr. confirms the beneficiary's 
participation in the conference and states: 
Lecturers and presenters from across the country are selected through a most exclusive and 
discriminating set of criteria. Only the most accomplished, preeminent and successful 
musicians, and music pedagogues are invited. A google search will verify this claim. [The 
beneficiary's] credentials warranted his presence at this conference. His topic on pedagogical 
techniques for teaching string music in secondary schools is a highly pertinent one for it 
serves many purposes for our schools in thee United States: As string instruments are 
generally more challenging to play than band or percussion instruments, the attrition rate in 
schools across the country tends to be significantly higher. . . Coupled with the serious 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 13 
shortage of well trained string music teachers who have sufficient performing experience at 
the professional level, [the beneficiary's] presentation is even more salient. Additionally, 
within the state of Connecticut and many other states, public school string music programs 
have yet another obstacle to overcome, and that is teacher retirements. [The beneficiary's] 
well-crafted lecture was accompanied by a performance by his middle school orchestra which 
he conducted and personally trained. The knowledge he imparted to all the music teachers 
present was invaluable as much of the technique he demonstrated via his orchestra were 
techniques one would only find only in professional orchestra and as such, these are 
techniques rarely, if not ever, found in textbooks. 
Dr. further notes that the beneficiary was selected in March 2009 to conduct the Connecticut Music 
Educator's Assocation's (CMEA) northern regional orchestra for middle school. He explains that CMEA is 
MENC's state organization in Connecticut and that selection to conduct the orchestra is a high honor reserved 
for the most accomplished musicians. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from - a music educator in the Hartford, Connecticut 
school system and previous State of Connecticut Music Teacher of the Year Award winner. Mr. - 
states that he attended the State of Connecticut, Music Educators Conference and describes his experience as 
follows: 
I had the privilege of attending a workshop conducted by [the beneficiary]. He presented a 
workshop on how to dramatically vary the sound produced by a string orchestra by simply 
changing the bow technique that is used. [The beneficiary] had with him a group of middle 
school students who exemplified the highest quality of performance etiquette, behavior and 
authentic period performance practice. 
All students performed with the same advanced bow technique which was taught to them by 
[the beneficiary]. They were able to demonstrate various other techniques which included 
changing the weight used on the bow, the angle by which the hand held the bow, the 
placement of the bow in relationship to the bridge and fingerboard, and the speed at which the 
bow was moved across the strings. The audience, which consisted of music educators from 
throughout the United States, was both amazed and impressed at the many timbres of sound 
that were created in this demonstration. Equally impressive was the ease at which the 
students were able to transition from one technique to the other, and the deep understanding 
that they each seemed to possess. It was clear to everyone in attendance that this 
demonstration was a result of excellent teaching and high standards. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from - Music Director and Conductor of 
, and past Chairperson, CMEA Northern Region- 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 14 
After an extensive search [the beneficiary] was chosen to be the clinician for the 2009 CMEA 
Northern Region Middle School Orchestra Festival based upon a stringent set of criteria that 
includes knowledge of orchestral literature, conducting technique and application of 
pedagogical skills. 
During my observations of [the beneficiary] over the course of the two day festival I saw 
teaching of the highest level. Extensive preparation for this event by [the beneficiary] was 
immediately evident. He demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the orchestral score, and 
conducting and rehearsal techniques that brought out the best in the student musicians. In 
addition, he inspired students with his professional level violin playing while demonstration 
[sic] passages from the music. All of those involved with the festival acknowledged the 
outstanding work down by [the beneficiary] and agreed that he is clearly in the top one 
percent of the teaching field. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted does not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(S). The director acknowledged the testimonial evidence, but found that "the fact that the 
beneficiary is skilled at teaching students, as well as other teachers, indicates that the beneficiary is skilled 
and qualified in performing his inherent job duties and not that he has made original contributions of major 
significance." The director found that the evidence did not include evidence of "any major original 
contributions or changes that the beneficiary has made to his field as a whole." 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
Your office did not recognize the beneficiary's presentations in the national conference as 
"contributions of major significance" in the field. Please note that the rest of the beneficiary's 
peers DO recognize that the beneficiary's presentations were of major significance. The 
president elect of [the] National Association for Music Education especially praised his 
teaching techniques, as well as his peers who attended his conference presentations. . . . Since 
these peers are experts in the music teaching field, we believe that the Service should give 
deference to their evaluation of the beneficiary's significant contributions. 
In compliance with , the AAO must focus on the plain language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d 
at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of "original scientific, 
scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii>(B)(5). 
Here, the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary has made an original contribution of major significance to the 
field of music education appears to be based in large part on his lecture, "Hands on Pedagogical Techniques 
for Secondary Strings," delivered at the CMEA's 62nd In-Service Conference held at the Connecticut 
Convention Center in March 2006. The record shows that the beneficiary was one of 47 clinicians invited to 
the conference. A review of the transcript of the beneficiary's lecture reveals that the beneficiary's workshop 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 15 
was designed "to clearly demonstrate the many erroneous concepts that inundate our public school music 
programs," and to "demonstrate the efficacy of mainstream fundamental performance practices, which, when 
applied faithfully, without compromise, results in music making that is special and meaningful for the student 
and the music educator alike." He discussed three performance practices he utilizes in his teaching, including 
"sustaining sound via supination and pronation and using the whole bow," "equalization of bows," and 
"subdivision of rhythms as a means of galvanizing and holding an ensemble together." Following his lecture, 
his middle school students demonstrated the techniques. 
The AAO acknowledges Dr. statement that the knowledge the beneficiary imparted to the music 
educators present was "invaluable." However, Dr. also noted that "much of the technique he 
demonstrated via his orchestra were techniques one would only find only in a professional orchestra" and as 
such are "rarely, if not ever, found in textbooks." Upon review, the AAO cannot find that mere selection for 
the conference, while apparently an honor reserved for accomplished music educators, is an original 
contribution of major significance, nor has the petitioner established that the beneficiary's one-hour lecture 
included content that could be considered "original" or that it has made a major impact on the field in the field 
of music education. 
Rather, it appears that the beneficiary demonstrated bow techniques, that while perhaps rarely used in 
Connecticut's middle schools, are based on "mainstream fundamental performance practices." The petitioner 
has not explained how the techniques taught are original. Furthermore, the petitioner has not explained how 
the beneficiary's lecture can be considered to be of "major significance." Presumably he and the other 
conference attendees would not have been invited if they did not have useful information to share with the 
other attending music educators. While the testimonial letters indicate that the conference attendees were 
extremely impressed with the techniques the beneficiary taught to his middle school students and regarded the 
beneficiary as an excellent teacher, the record contains no demonstrable measure of the impact the 
beneficiary's lecture has had on the field of music education as a whole. 
For example, Dr. states that the beneficiary's topic on pedagogical techniques for teaching string music 
is "highly pertinent" and "serves many purposes for our schools in the United States." He notes that string 
instruments are more challenging to play and experience a higher attrition rate among students compared to 
other instruments. Dr. - indicates that these factors, combined with a shortage of well-trained string 
music teachers and teacher retirements, made the beneficiary's lecture "even more salient." However, Dr. 
does not explain how the beneficiary's one-hour lecture has impacted string music programs, student 
attrition rates, or string teacher shortages. While it is possible to speculate that a widespread application of 
the beneficiary's chosen teaching techniques among school strings programs could lead to more enthusiasm 
among students, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary has already made a major impact on the 
field, or that his techniques have been adopted by any other teacher, much less by a significant segment of the 
music education field as a whole. Rather, his teaching techniques appear to be highly regarded by persons 
who have witnessed the performances of the beneficiary's students first-hand. 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 16 
Therefore, the AAO agrees that the testimonial letters do not adequately describe with specificity any original 
contribution of major significance in the field. The phrase "major significance" is not defined in the statute or 
regulations. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has 
some meaning. Looking to the applicable dictionary definition, the word "major" is defined as "greater in 
importance or rank." Webster's New World College Dictionary 867 (4th Ed. 2008). The word "significance" 
is defined as "importance, consequence, moment." Id. at 1334. While the testimonial letters discuss the value 
of the beneficiary's teaching techniques, and confirm that he has received some recognition among his peers, 
there is no evidence that the beneficiary's conference presentation on string techniques constituted an original 
contribution of "major significance" in his field. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.4 Id.; see also Matter of 
V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way 
questionable. Matter of Caron Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. 
Supp. at 1108. 
The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the beneficiary's contributions as a music educator distinguished him 
from those of any other music educators. Without extensive documentation showing how the beneficiary's 
teaching methods have already impacted his field, that such methods have been unusually influential, or have 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets 
this criterion. 
4. Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion, although in its initial letter, it mentioned that the 
beneficiary has served as string methods specialist in the Connecticut Alternate route to certification (ARC) 
program, as a lecturer in string methods for undergraduate students training to become public school music 
teachers, as an adjunct professor in music at Central Connecticut State University, and as a music instructor at the 
University of Connecticut Community School of the Arts. In response to the WE, counsel stated: 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The 
Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial 
and documentary evidence, where available." Id.; see also Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998) 
(noting that there is a greater need for corroborative evidence when the testimony lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility). 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 17 
The State of Connecticut Department of Higher Education operates an Alternative Route to 
Certification Program (ARC). The ARC is authorized by the Connecticut State Department of 
Education to prepare individuals to become certified as teachers in Connecticut. Over its 20-year 
history, ARC has prepared more than 3,800 teachers. Each applicant must already have earned a 
bachelor's degree. However, on average, more than 50 percent of ARC students have earned 
master's or doctoral degrees. Admission to the ARC program is highly competitive. 
The beneficiary is one of only three music specialists in the program. . . 
Dr. , noted the beneficiary's role as a lecturer-presenter at the above referenced 
CMEA conference, his role as conductor of the CMEA northern regional orchestra for middle school, and his 
duties with ARC. With respect to the latter, he stated: 
[The beneficiary] has also performed a vital role in our highly successful Alternative Route to 
Teacher certification program run under the auspices of the Connecticut State Department of 
Education. Currently, he is the string music specialist for this program, a position he has held for 
a number of years. Please note that there are only three specialists in this program: One is a 
general music and vocal specialist, another is a band music specialist and [the beneficiary] is the 
string music specialist. His skills are therefore vital to the needs of our student teachers. 
The director determined, without discussion or analysis, that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(7) has 
been satisfied. 
Upon review, the AAO disagrees with the director and will withdraw the director's determination that this 
criterion has been met. As discussed above, the AAO conducts its appellate review on a de novo basis. See 
Soltune v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
At issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that 
selected him. As an educator, the beneficiary has held the following roles: faculty member at the University of 
Connecticut College of Continuing Studies; director of orchestras for Farmington public schools; adjunct 
professor of music at Central Connecticut State University; lecturer at the above-referenced CMEA conference; 
director of orchestras at Manchester public schools; Instructor, Connecticut State Department of Higher 
Education ARC teacher certification program; and lecturer, University of Connecticut Music Department. 
The petitioner appears to claim eligibility for this criterion based on the beneficiary's participation in the ARC 
teacher certification program, and his roles as lecturer for the 2006 CMEA in-service conference and as conductor 
for the 2009 CMEA Northern Region Middle School Orchestra Festival. 
While the AAO recognizes the petitioner's statement that the beneficiary is the only strings specialist working on 
the music faculty of the ARC teacher certification program, and that entrance to the program is highly 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 18 
competitive for prospective students, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's critical and essential role 
in the ARC program or the distinguished reputation of the program within the field. The fact that the beneficiary 
was chosen to fill the sole strings position within the program's three-person music faculty is insufficient to 
establish that his role is critical or essential for the program. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how 
the beneficiary's role as an instructor differentiates him from any other instructors within the program. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary is responsible for the success or 
standing of the ARC teacher certification program to a degree consistent with the meaning of "essential or critical 
capacity." 
Furthermore, while the testimonial evidence submitted establishes that being selected to serve as a lecturer at the 
annual CMEA in-service conference is considered an honor among music educators, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary's role as a lecturer, which involved a single one-hour conference presentation and 
demonstration, was in an essential or critical capacity. As noted above, a total of 47 music educators were invited 
to present or lecture at this conference. Again, the petitioner does not differentiate the beneficiary's role from that 
of other conference faculty or explain how he is responsible for the success or standing of CMEA or its annual 
conference. 
The beneficiary's role as conductor of the CMEA Regional Music Festival middle school orchestra was likely a 
role that was critical to the success of the middle school students who performed at the festival, but the AAO is 
not persuaded that the beneficiary has played a significant role in the CMEA as a whole, or even that he has even 
been employed by CMEA. Rather, the evidence shows that CMEA has recognized the beneficiary with 
prestigious, but very temporary posts, on two occasions. 
The beneficiary's roles as an adjunct assistant professor, lecturer and faculty member for the University of 
Connecticut and Central Connecticut State University, while notable, also have not been shown to be critical or 
essential positions within those institutions. The beneficiary appears to have held ordinary faculty positions, albeit 
for institutions of higher learning, and the record does not establish that the beneficiary has been responsible for 
the success or standing of the music department at either school, nor does it demonstrate that either school has a 
distinguished music program. Finally, while the beneficiary has held the critical position of orchestra director for 
two public school systems, the petitioner has not established that either school is recognized as having a 
distinguished music program. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language of 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of 
a final merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under any 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 19 
Notwithstanding the above, a final merits determination considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or 
not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has achieved a level of expertise indicating that he is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). See 
Kazarian, 20 10 WL 7253 17 at "3. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
has "extraordinary ability" in the field of education, which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim, and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
received a major internationally recognized award or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The submitted evidence is not 
indicative of the beneficiary's national or international acclaim and there is no indication that his individual 
achievements have been so recognized in the field or that he met the overall criteria for eligibility at the time this 
petition was filed. 
The evidence as a whole establishes that the beneficiary is a well-educated and extremely capable musician and 
music teacher who has been an asset to his employers and students. However, any claims in the record that the 
beneficiary is among the top 1% or 5% of the profession appear to be based on individual assessments of his 
innate talents and personal attributes, rather than on his sustained national or international acclaim in the field of 
music education. At most, the evidence supports a finding that the beneficiary has garnered some degree of 
recognition as a music educator within the state of Connecticut, and a high degree of respect and appreciation 
from the students, teachers, school administrators and teaching organizations with whom he has worked. 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary. Unlike recruiting and hiring 
decisions, however, eligibility for this visa classification is not based on a beneficiary's having specific 
professional competencies, but rather hinges on the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim 
and recognition in the field. 
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without 
evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim. Unusual in its specificity, 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act clearly requires "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. 
Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of 
WAC 09 219 5 1079 
Page 20 
V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. The content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Here, many of the experts are personally acquainted with 
the beneficiary, and most have worked with him as a colleague or supervisor. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The conclusion we reach by considering each evidentiary criterion separately is consistent with a review of 
the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
beneficiary, an experienced music educator, relies on his teaching career and the praise of his colleagues and 
experts in the fields of music and education. While the beneficiary has impressive educational credentials and 
extensive and varied teaching experience, the statute requires that we compare him to all others in the field of 
education, and not simply to the typical secondary school strings teacher. 
On their own, some of the beneficiary's reference letters represent a sampling of individuals who may have risen 
to the "very top of the field of endeavor." For example, according to his biography, Dr. - president-elect of 
MENC, has received national awards, authored many publications and presented "countless" workshops on music 
program development, assisted in the development of America's National Standards in music, helped design and 
interpret the federal arts education survey, and served as president of the National Council of State Supervisors of 
Music. Thus, it appears that the highest level of the beneficiary's field is somewhat above the level the beneficiary 
has attained. 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
111. Prior 0-1 Petition Approval 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner noted that the beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status and referred 
to the 2004 Yates memorandum to support her assertion that it is USCIS policy that prior approvals should be 
given deference in matters relating to an extension of nonimmigrant petition validity involving the same 
parties and the same underlying facts. The memorandum provides that exceptions to this policy should be 
made where: (1) it is determined that there was a material error with regard to the previous petition approval; 
(2) a substantial change in circumstances has taken place; or (3) there is new material information that 
adversely impacts the petitioner's or beneficiary's eligibility. Counsel asserts that, although the instant 
petition was filed by a new employer, the facts that led the prior adjudicator to conclude that the beneficiary is 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of education remain the same. The petitioner submits a copy of 
the prior 0-1 petition and supporting documentation in support of the appeal, and the AAO notes that the 
supporting documentation submitted in support of the prior petition is nearly identical to the initial evidence 
WAC 09 219 51079 
Page 21 
submitted in this matter. However, a petition involving a new employer does not involve the "same parties," 
and it was well within the director's discretion to reassess the beneficiary's qualifications. 
While USCIS previously approved a petition for 0-1 status filed on behalf of the beneficiary, the prior 
approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on reassessment of 
the petitioner's or beneficiary's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). The mere fact that USCIS, by mistake or oversight, approved a visa petition on one 
occasion does not create an automatic entitlement to the approval of a subsequent petition for renewal of that 
visa. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). As discussed above, the evidence submitted fails to meet the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A) or three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), and is thus insufficient to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the field of education. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, 
USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its 
burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 29 1 of the Act. 
This denial does not preclude the petitioner from filing a new immigrant or nonimmigrant visa petition, 
supported by the required evidence. As always, the burden remains with the petitioner to establish eligibility 
for the requested visa classification. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.