dismissed O-1B Case: Music

(b)(6)
Date: FEB 1 8 Z014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 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 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenber 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(0) as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 
1 
The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 classification for a 
period of two years so that the petitioner may engage the beneficiary's services as a music performer/singer. 
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. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director 's decision is 
erroneous. No brief or additional evidence was submitted in support of the appeal. 
I. TheLaw 
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: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, visual 
arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. 
Event means an activity such as, but not limited to, a scientific project, conference, 
convention, lecture series, tour, exhibit, business project, academic year, or engagement. 
Such activity may include short vacations, promotional appearances, and stopovers which are 
incidental to and/or related to the event. A group of related activities may also be considered 
to be an event. In the case of an 0-1 athlete, the event could be the alien's contract. 
Extraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
1 On Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and in the supporting documentation , the petitioner is 
identified as On 
the 0 and P Classific ation Supplement to Form I-129, the petitioner is identified as 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Non-precedent decision 
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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv) states, in pertinent part: 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
Non-precedent decision 
(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii) provides that petitions for 0 aliens shall be accompanied by the 
following: 
(A) The evidence specified in the particular section for the classification; 
(B) Copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the alien beneficiary or, if 
there is no written contract, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement under which 
the alien will be employed; 
(C) An explanation of the nature of the events or activities, the beginning and end dates for 
the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the events or activities; and 
(D) A written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or entities. 
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. 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 5 
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 
(91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (91h 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). 
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 
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). 
II. Facts and Procedural History 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
The beneficiary, a music performer/singer, is a native and citizen of Nigeria who was last admitted to the 
United States as a Bl!B2 visitor. The petitioner, which is described as an entertainment-music production 
company, filed the petition on February 13, 2013. 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Project [the beneficiary] 
ObjeCtive," prepared by This document states in pertinent part: 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Non-precedent decision 
Every artist/musician has a starting point. will work with 
[the beneficiary] from the point that she is a new artist in the United State [sic]. [The petitioner] 
will promote [the beneficiary] by placing her CD on major radio station play lists and rotations. 
[The petitioner] will also place [the beneficiary 's] video on music channels such as 
[sic] in the US. 
[The petitioner] expects [the beneficiary's] commitment m every aspects of this endeavor, 
including being on time to all schedule [sic] events as punctuality and discipline is key to any 
artist's success. 
Initially, [the petitioner] will book promotional performances and appearances locally within 
Washington, DC and Baltimore area to create a buzz. These appearances will extend to 
Philadelphia and New York. 
It's [the petitioner 's] believe [sic] that once there 's a buzz, the momentum of the buzz will create 
opportunities for [the beneficiary] to be booked as an opening act on tour circuits by [the 
beneficiary] would be compensated from ticket sales [sic]. 
[The petitioner] will source for reputable producer(s) for [the beneficiary's] up coming release 
on [the beneficiary 's] label; however [the petitioner] will shop for a distribution deal with major 
distributor(s) in the US. 
Initially, since [the beneficiary] will be performing in small venues with a backing track, [the 
petitioner] suggests a compact PA system at the cost of $6,000.00 .... 
The petitioner submitted a "Recording Artist Agreement" between the petitioner ("Compa11y'') and the 
beneficiary ("Artiste"), stating that the petitioner "hereby engages Artist's exclusive personal services as a 
recording artist" for a term of two years. 
The petitioner submitted the copyright registration claim for the work " 
The petitioner submitted a DVD copy of the beneficiary's initial song. Counsel asserted that this song was 
"published and played on iTunes from August 19, 2012," and that the music video for this song was "published 
and played on YouTube from August 19,2012 and presently generated 174,649 interests." 
The director issued a request for additional evidence ("RFE"), instructing the petitioner to submit: a complete 
itinerary of engagements which shows the specific dates of each engagement, the name of the actual 
employer, and the name and address of the facility where the services will be performed ; and evidence of the 
beneficiary 's extraordinary ability. 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 7 
Tn resnnn~P tn thP RFF thf' nP.titinnf'r submitted an advisory letter from the 
. This letter states in pertinent part: 
We have reviewed the Draft I-129 Petition and supporting documentation regarding your 
request for our advisory opinion on behalf of the above referenced Nigerian artist. 
Based upon the new and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, it is our advisory 
opinion that the evidence presented clearly establishes that (the beneficiary] is a 
vocalist/entertainer of extraordinary ability, which has been demonstrated by sustained 
international acclaim. This artist therefore meets the recently revised standards of distinction 
in the arts to qualify for an 0-1 visa. 
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of this visa petition. 
In response to the RFE , the petitioner also submitted a letter from , which states in pertinent part: 
Please accept this letter in support of the above mentioned artist. My name is and 
I have over thirty years (sic] experience in the music industry - promotion, production and 
television. In the years, I have worked directly or indirectly on projects by several 
internationally recognized artists in the industry and based on my experience in the field, it is my 
humble opinion that the songs by [the beneficiary] are perhaps some of the best -artistically, that 
I have reviewed in the last fifteen years. 
From the album ' which has been playing on YouTube and iTunes since the 
second quarter of 2012, to her present recordings that are due to enter the market soon, I have no 
doubt that her products would generate tremendous acceptance in the market. Further, [the 
beneficiary] has a standing promotional agreement with a reputable marketing company - (the 
petitioner], and under that agreement, is positioned to travel to several cities in the US and 
Europe as a support singer for major artists. 
Finally, the petitioner resubmitted copies of the "Project [the beneficiary] Objective" and copyright registration 
claim for the work" 
The director denied the petition on May 15, 2013, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). In the denial, the director analyzed the petitioner's evidence under the criterion 
at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) . The director determined that the petitioner did not assert eligibility under 
any other regulatory criteria. 
The petitioner now files the instant appeal. On appeal, counsel asserts the following: 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
Non-precedent decision 
The herein appeal is based on the following: 
1. Erroneous application of the documents provided in drawing a conclusion that fails to 
reach a proper decision in the case. Several submitted documents including supporting 
document from the Association of Musicians of American [sic J and Canada were not 
considered in the process as genuine documents. 
2. Other submitted documents including promotional schedule was misapplied (Criterion 3). 
3. Documents submitted under Criterion 4 and 5 were also misapplied. 
4. Erroneous conclusion of law in its decision. 
Finally, petitioner hereby wishes to submit complete brief together with additional supporting 
documents within 30 days of submitting the herein Notice of Appeal. 
As of this date, no brief or additional evidence has been submitted. The record will be considered complete. 
III. Discussion 
A. 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). 
Counsel indicates that the beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3), (4) and (5). The 
remaining criterion will not be discussed. 
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. 
On appeal, counsel vaguely asserts that "[ o ]ther submitted documents including promotional schedule was 
misapplied (Criterion 3)." Other than the "promotional schedule," which appears to be the document entitled 
"Project [the beneficiary] Objective," counsel does not specify which documents were submitted under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). Counsel provides no explanation for how the "promotional schedule" or any other 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 9 
documents in the record constitute evidence that the beneficiary 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, pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
First, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary has performed in a lead, starring, or critical role. To 
the contrary, the "promotional schedule" states that the beneficiary is a new artist in the United States. The 
petitioner provided no documentation regarding the beneficiary's past performances in the United States or 
elsewhere. 
Second, there is n6 evidence 
establishing that the beneficiary will perform in a lead, starring, or critical role. The 
letter from states that the beneficiary "is positioned to travel to several cities in the US and Europe 
as a support singer for major artists." Moreover, the "promotional schedule" states that the petitioner believes 
that "once there's a buzz, the momentum of the buzz will create opportunities for [the beneficiary] to be booked 
as an opening act." These documents indicate that t~e beneficiary will begin her career in the United States in 
minor or non-leading roles, with the hope that she will be "booked as an opening act" sometime in the future, 
once (and if) her work garners attention. 
Third, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary has performed or will perform for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner submitted no objective, reliable 
documentation establishing that it has a distinguished reputation. The only document in the record that references 
the petitioner's reputation is the letter from which states: "Further, [the beneficiary] has a standing 
promotional agreement with a reputable marketing company- [the petitioner]." This conclusory, uncorroborated 
statement is insufficient to establish that the petitioner is an organization or establishment with a distinguished 
reputation. 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. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). According to the 
"promotional schedule," the beneficiary initially will be perfonning "promotional performances ... in small 
venues." The petitioner provided no further information identifying these "small venues" and establishing the 
reputation of these small venues. 
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to meet the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
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 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "[ d]ocuments submitted under Criterion 4 and 5 were also misapplied" but 
provides no explanation to support this assertion. Upon a review of the record, the petitioner has not 
submitted any relevant evidence pertaining to this criterion. Specifically, the petitioner submitted no evidence 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 10 
of the beneficiary's commercial or critical successes in the form of published evidence from trade journals, 
major newspapers or other publications, as required. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) requires the petitioner's commercial or critically acclaimed successes to be "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 AAO notes counsel's claim that the beneficiary's song" 'was "published and played on 
iTunes from August 19, 2012," and that the music video for this song was "published and played on YouTube 
from August 19, 2012 and presently generated 174,649 interests." However, counsel submitted no objective 
documentation to support this assertion. Again, 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. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the petitioner submitted evidence 
that the beneficiary's song was published and played on iTunes, and that her music video generated 174,649 
interests on YouTube, the petitioner nevertheless failed to establish that this constitutes "major commercial or 
critically acclaimed successes," as required by the plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)( 4). 
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 
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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "[ d]ocuments submitted under Criterion 4 and 5 were also misapplied" but 
provides no explanation to support this assertion. It appears that the petitioner submitted the advisory letter 
from the 
as evidence under this criterion. 
The advisory letter states that the organization has reviewed the petitioner's draft petition and supporting 
documentation, and concludes that "the evidence presented clearly establishes that [the beneficiary] is a 
vocalist/entertainer of extraordinary ability, which has been demonstrated by sustained international acclaim. 
This artist therefore meets the recently revised standards of distinction in the arts to qualify for an 0-1 visa." 
This advisory letter is insufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. This letter contains only 
conclusory language about the beneficiary's extraordinary ability and sustained international acclaim, but 
provides no details explaining the factual basis behind these conclusions. This letter does not describe any of 
the beneficiary's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms, as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii). Simply 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. Merely 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 11 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava , 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissn er, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The letter from is also insufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. First, the petitioner 
failed to establish that Ofon Samson can be considered a "recognized expert in the field. " Although 
asserts that he or she has "over thirty years [sic] experience in the music industry - promotion, 
production and television" and has "worked directly or indirectly on projects by several internationally 
recognized artists in the industry," the petitioner submitted no corroborating evidence to support this assertion and 
to establish the level of expertise in the industry. 
Assuming arguendo that can be considered a "recognized expert in the field," this letter does not 
establish that the beneficiary has already received significant recognition for achievements. Rather, this letter 
states that the writer has " no doubt that [the beneficiary 's] products would generate tremendous acceptance in the 
market (emphasis added)." Again, the writer did not specifically describe the alien's recognition and ability or 
achievement in factual terms, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii). Speculation as to the beneficiary's 
potential future success is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has already received significant recognition 
for her achievements. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under any of the criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv )(B). Therefore, the proper conclusion is that petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 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. 
2 
2 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DO.T, 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)(1)(ii) . See also 
. Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS , is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions). 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 12 
C. Beyond the director's decision 
Beyond the director's decision, the AAO will address whether the petitioner adequately described the nature 
of the beneficiary's planned events or activities, the beginning and end dates for such activities, and provided 
an adequate itinerary for the events or activities. 3 Upon review of the record, the petitioner failed to submit an 
adequate itinerary or other documentation establishing that the beneficiary would be performing at specific 
events. 
In the RFE, the director specifically instructed the petitioner to submit a complete itinerary of engagements 
which shows the specific dates of each engagement, the name of the actual employer, and the name and 
address of the facility where the services will be performed. The petitioner failed to submit the itinerary as 
requested. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(14). 
The petitioner did not submit documentation that sufficiently explains the nature of the beneficiary's events or 
activities, and the beginning and ending dates for these events or activities. Instead, the documentation in the 
record describes the beneficiary's proposed performances in vague and general terms. The letter from 
states only that the beneficiary has "a standing promotional agreement" with the petitioner that 
requires her to "travel to several cities in the US and Europe as a support singer for major artists." No further 
details regarding these performances were provided in the letter. The " Project [the beneficiary] Objective" 
states that the petitioner "will book promotional performances and appearances locally within Washington, DC 
and Baltimore area ... [and these] appearances will extend to Philadelphia and New York." This document also 
states that the beneficiary will initially be performing in "small venues with a backing track." Again, no further 
details regarding these proposed performances were provided in the letter. The petitioner provided no 
evidence establishing that the beneficiary will be performing at specific events, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( 0 )(2)(ii)(C). 
For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
D. Conclusion 
The petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit an adequate itinerary or other 
documentation establishing that the beneficiary will be performing at specific events, as required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145. 
(b)(6)
Non-precedent decision 
Page 13 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec 
127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.