dismissed O-1B Case: Art

(b)(6)
Date:SEP 1 3 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll0l(a)(l5)(0)(i) 
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.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
erg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a church , filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 
101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 classification for a 
period of two years so that the petitioner may employ the beneficiary as an artist-in-residence to develop an mt 
program for the church . The beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status for employment with the petitioner; 
therefore, the petitioner requested that she be granted an extension of status. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts as defined in the statute and regulations. The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or any of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director 
declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the evidence submitted meets three of the 
evidentiary requirements set f01th at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), (4), and (5). 
Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in supp01t of the appeal. For reasons that will be discussed 
below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements for an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
I. 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: 
Arls includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, visual 
arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Extraordinary ability in the field of arlS means distinction . Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, 
or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Non-precedent decision 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. To qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the field of arts, the alien must be recognized as being prominent in his 
or her field of endeavor as demonstrated by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or the recipient of, significant national 
or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award, an 
Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award ; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
( 1) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, 
publications, contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications; 
( 3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or 
critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or 
testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, 
box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
publications; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in 
the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form 
which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence; or 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv) 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. 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page4 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(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 certifying 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 affiant 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 
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 set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 
(9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the Kazarian 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
The court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns. about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet two of the criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final 
merits determination." Id at 1121-22. 
Thus, Kazarian 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. While involving a different 
classification than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 5 
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 Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOl, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In this matter, the AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion 
claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) , the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
II. Discussion 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set fotth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
The beneficiary, an artist, is a native and citizen of Canada who was last admitted to the United States in 
0-lB status to work for the petitioner for two years. The petitioner, an , filed the 
instant petition on October 17, 2012. The director subsequently issued a request for additional evidence 
("RFE"), to which the petitioner responded. 
The Evidentiary Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular 
field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the 
beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulation lists an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or 
a Director's Guild award as examples of qualifying significant awards or prizes. 
The petitioner does not claim eligibility under this criterion. Therefore, the petitioner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The 
petitioner indicates that the beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), (4) and (5). The 
remaining criteria will not be discussed. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. 
The petitioner has submitted numerous articles regarding the beneficiary from a variety of print sources. Three are 
foreign language articles without accompanying translations, appearing in the publications 
respectively. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires the submission of 
complete certified English language translations for all foreign language documents. Because the petitioner 
failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence 
supports the petitioner's claims. Thus, we will not consider the foreign language articles. 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted three articles published in featuring the beneficiary's work. The first a1ticle 
discussed the exhibition "Impact" by installation artists of Atlantic Canada, and included a photograph of one of 
the beneficiary's pieces. Even though this article included a photograph of one of the beneficiary's pieces, this 
article did not specifically discuss the beneficiary or her artwork. Rather, it was about the ' 
in general and the overall theme of the exhibition, which included works from an unspecified 
number of other artists. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish that this article is "about" the beneficiary or 
otherwise constitutes evidence that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for her 
achievements . The second article discussed the beneficiary's exhibit' in 1996. The third 
article discussed the beneficiary's exhibit " While the second and third articles specifically discussed 
the beneficiary's work and thus are "about" the beneficiary, the petitioner failed to establish that is a 
major national newspaper in Canada . Although the petitioner asserted that is a "national glossy 
magazine," the petitioner failed to provide any specific information regarding the magazine's actual circulation 
and distribution, so the AAO cannot discern whether it is a major magazine. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg . Commr. 1972)). 
The petitioner submitted an article about the beneficiary's exhibition, published in 
in February 1996. The petitioner failed to establish that this is a major publication. The petitioner 
failed to provide any specific information regarding the magazine's actual circulation and distribution, so the 
AAO cannot discern whether it is a major magazine. Notably, the petitioner indicated that ·is 
"the daily newspaper published in the province's capital city, r" this suggests that the newspaper 's 
readership is limited to a particular city. 
The petitioner submitted two articles published in One article discussed ' 
'created by a group of eight artists, including the beneficiary. While this article mentions 
the beneficiary, this article did not specifically mscuss the beneficiary or her work so as to establish that this 
article is "about" the beneficiary as required by the regulation. The other article discussed the beneficiary's 
exhibit as well as the beneficiary's life in general. While this article is "about" the beneficiary, the 
petitioner failed to establish that is a "major" newspaper. The petitioner failed 
to provide any specific information regarding actual circulation and 
distribution, so the AAO cannot discern whether it is a major newspaper. The petitioner indicated that 
is both a provincial daily as well as a local newspaper for Canada 
(population 120,000), again indicating that the newspaper's readership is limited to a particular City. While the 
petitioner indicates that - "is published by owned by 
" this does not establish that itself is a major newspaper, regardless of 
its publisher or owner. 
The petitioner submitted an article published in about an exhibition in in which 
one of the beneficiary's pieces was featured In particular, this article critically describes the beneficiary 's piece 
as and goes on to state that one of the major problems with the exhibition 
was that ' The petitioner failed to establish that this article constitutes 
evidence that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for her achievements. 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that this newspaper is a "major" publication, as required by the 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 7 
regulation. While the petitioner indicated that this newspaper is the only English language daily newspaper 
published in Montreal and is Quebec's oldest daily newspaper, the petitioner .did not provide any specific 
information regarding actual circulation and distribution, so the AAO cannot discem 
whether it is a major newspaper. 
The petitioner submitted two articles in discussing the beneficiary's artwork. The petitioner 
failed to establish that t is a "major" publication. The petitioner indicated that 
. · is "a daily newspaper from New Brunswick's ' However, the petitioner did not 
provide any specific information regarding actual circulation and distribution, so the AAO 
cannot discern whether it is a major newspaper. 
The petitioner submitted an article about the beneficiary's exhibit 'published in 
The petitioner failed to establish that is a "major" publication . The petitioner did not provide 
any specific information regarding · actual circulation and distribution, so the AAO cannot 
discern whether it is a major newspaper. The petitioner indicated that is "a daily newspaper in 
Vancouver, BC and serving the in British 
Columbia;" this suggests that the newspaper's readership is limited to a particular city. 
Further, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's exhibition catalogues. However, the petitioner failed to 
establish that these exhibition catalogues constitute major publications . Exhibition catalogues are primarily 
distributed to exhibition viewers; the petitioner submitted no evidence to establish how many people attended the 
above exhibitions. The petitioner submitted no evidence to establish that these catalogues were widely distributed 
outside of the exhibitions' viewers. 
Upon review, none of the media coverage of the beneficiary, including newspaper articles, brochures and 
catalogues, has been shown to be national or international in scope. 
Finally, the AAO cannot conclude that routine exhibition reviews constitute "national recognition for 
achievements" for a fine artist. The above-referenced reviews mention the beneficiary's technique and subject 
matter and are, generally, neutral to positive in assessing the beneficiary's work. The petitioner has not indicated 
how such reviews rise to the level of "recognition for achievements." 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we concur with the director's conclusion that the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) has not been met. 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as 
evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion 
picture or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals , 
major newspapers, or other publications 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C .P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) based on her 
major exhibitions, as follows: her solo exhibition , (1993);" her exhibition at m 
Paris (1999);" her exhibition' (1991)" which received an honorable mention in a 
t ; her exhibition (2000)" curated by the · which 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
included a published book; her exhibition 
2000)." 
Non-precedent decision 
(1996);" and her exhibition ' (1998-
While the petitiOner has submitted publications as evidence of the beneficiary's exhibitions, none of the 
publications indicate that the beneficiary has a record of "major commercial or critically acclaimed success as 
evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion picture or television 
ratings, and other occupational achievements." In particular, none of the articles reported how many people 
attended the above exhibitions, which would constitute evidence equivalent to "box office receipts" or "motion 
picture or television ratings" as referenced in the regulation. Most of the articles did not report how the 
beneficiary's exhibitions were received by the public and critics, or otherwise provide any other factual indicators 
to establish whether the beneficiary has achieved "major commercial or critically acclaimed success." Rather, 
many of the submitted publications, particularly the exhibit brochures and catalogues, were purely informational 
publications that simply announced rather than substantively discussed the beneficiary's work. 
Further, we are not persuaded that a newspaper review of a gallery exhibition rises to the level of an 
"occupational achievement" as contemplated by the regulation. 
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognztwn for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 
In support of this criterion, the petitiOner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 
, which the beneficiary states she received when she obtained studio 
space in France, and which she states gave her free admission to all the museums in the European Union. The 
petitioner failed to explain how this card constitutes evidence that the beneficiary has received significant 
recognition for her achievements. The petitioner failed to provide any information as to what criteria is 
needed to be satisfied in order for an individual to qualify for this identity card. On its face, the card simply 
identifies the beneficiary as a professional artist. 
The petitioner asserted that one of the beneficiary's painted bowls was chosen by the 1 to 
present to the .. As evidence of this assertion, the petitioner submitted a copy of 
the beneficiary's invitation to" hosted at the Aberdeen Cultural Center, attended by the 
Governor General of Canada. However, the petitioner failed to provide any factual information as to what 
criteria was utilized to select the beneficiary's art piece for this particular occasion. The petitioner also 
provided no background information about " or the Aberdeen Cultural Center. 
Therefore, the AAO is unable to discern the significance of this particular event. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the Canada Council for the Arts confirming that the beneficiary 
received an in 1993 for $11,431, and that the council provides grant funding "to individual 
professional artists and arts organizations 
through a peer assessment process." However, the letter does not 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 9 
provide any specific information as to the exact criteria utilized to select the beneficiary for this grant. Merely 
stating that funding is provided to professional artists through a peer assessment process does not indicate that 
this grant was awarded based upon the beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner submitted letters confirming that the beneficiary received two grants from the 
for two distinct projects, as well as an t for her travel to 
China . Again, these letters do not provide any specific information as to the exact criteria utilized to select 
the beneficiary for these grants. The mere fact that the beneficiary was awarded these grants does not 
establish that these grants were awarded based upon the beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the . confirming that 
it purchased one of the beneficiary's art pieces for $800 in 1995 as part of the 1995-1996 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence that establishes that the 
purchase constitutes "significant recognition" for the beneficiary's achievements. 
The petitioner submitted a letter confirming that the beneficiary was an Invited Artist at the 
from June to July 2001. Again, the letter does not provide any specific 
information as to the exact criteria utilized to select the beneficiary for this program. Therefore , the AAO is 
unable to discern the significance of this particular event. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted several letters from members of the petitioning church, residents of the 
community, and representatives of other community organizations. These letters attest to the beneficiary's 
artistic skills, her contributions and dedication to the community, and the importance of continuing her work 
for the community. However, while the AAO recognizes that the individuals who provided the letters hold a 
high opinion of the beneficiary, the submitted testimonials do not satisfy the plain language of the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). None of the persons providing testimonials are recognized 
experts in the field of fine arts. It is evident that the beneficiary's talent and contributions to the community 
are greatly respected and appreciated. The beneficiary has earned the praise and respect of for her work from 
local organizations, her church, and residents of her community. However, we must conclude that the 
witnesses have not clearly indicated their authority and expertise in the field of fine arts and are simply not 
"recognized experts" in the field, and as such, their testimonial evidence, individually and collectively, does 
not rise to the level of "significant recognition." 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
III. Prior Approval 
The record does show that USCIS has approved a prior 0-1 classification petition filed by the petitioner on behalf 
of the instant beneficiary. In matters relating to an extension of nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the 
same petitioner, beneficiary, and underlying facts, USCIS will generally give some deference to a prior 
determination of eligibility. However, 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 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 10 
Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a 
separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is 
limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
In the present matter, the director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the beneficiary was 
ineligible for the requested classification. In both the request for evidence and the notice of decision, the 
director clearly articulated the objective statutory and regulatory requirements and applied them to the case at 
hand. Much of the evidence in the current record consists of newspaper clippings and catalogues/brochures 
dated in the 1990s and early 2000s, which we presume were submitted in support of the beneficiary's initial 
petition filed in 2010. If the previous petition was approved based on the same minimal evidence of the 
beneficiary's eligibility, the approval would constitute gross error on the part of the director. 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'r 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, I 090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore , the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petition on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), a.ffd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
IV. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability in the field of arts must clearly 
establish that the beneficiary is prominent to the extent that she could be considered renowned, leading or well­
known in her field. 
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 any of the criteria 
found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The AAO will not conduct a final merits 
determination. 
For the above-stated reasons, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), and the petition may not be approved.1 
1 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.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 .F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(l) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec . 458, 460 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 11 
The petltwn will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons . In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).