dismissed O-1B Case: Music

(b)(6)t 
!. 
! 
DATE: MAR 2 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccul'ity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washinl!ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Thank you, 
�tl:-v-. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Acting Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, 
and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner, a musical production/promotion company, 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), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a percussionist for a period of three years. 
The acting director denied the petition, concluding that the submitted evidence did not satisfy the 
evidentiary requirements applicable to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, pursuant to 8 
C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). The acting director also concluded that the petitioner did not 
establish that it will engage the beneficiary's services for a specific event or events as required by 
the regulations. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The acting director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to us. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is eligible 
for the classification sought. The petitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal, and evidence 
previously submitted into the record. 
For the reasons discussed below, while we withdraw the director's finding pertaining to whether the 
petitioner intends to engage the beneficiary's services for a specific event or events, we agree that the 
petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility as an individual with extraordinary ability. 
Accordingly, we will uphold the acting director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
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.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: 
"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 
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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's recognition in the field through 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 Emrny, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1)-(6). If the petitioner demonstrates that certain 
criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv)(B) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to 
be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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. 
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. 
Further, pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(1)(i), a qualified beneficiary may be authorized to come to 
the United States to perform services relating to an event or events if petitioned for by an 
employer. The regulation at 8 C.P.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 
ending dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the 
events or activities; and 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(D) A written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or 
entities. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines "event" as follows: 
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 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. 
II. Discussion 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on December 5, 2013. The acting director issued requests for additional evidence 
(RFEs) on December 19, 2013, and March 24, 2014, respectively, to which the petitioner replied. 
We have considered the evidence of record in its entirety in reaching this decision. 
In a letter dated October 23, 2013, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's work as a musician 
"has been recognized by the Latin music industry at the national and international level with 
distinction and high achievement." The petition er indicated that the beneficiary "has been 
exclusively selected bv renowned Latin artists including Grammy award winners such as 
and many others in various productions" 
and "has traveled the world as a musician playing for crowds in countries such as Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Europe." 
The petitioner indicates that it is a company "specializing in representing and promoting the works 
and talents of new and established Latin artists." The petitioner states that it will begin production 
of a new album scheduled for release in January 2015. The petitioner explains that the beneficiary 
will be its percussionist and "will lead instrumental rehearsals and per forman ces" and will also 
"lead instrumental recordings of [the] new album." The petitioner further explained that "[o]nce 
the album has been completed and released we will begin a national tour in the United States 
followed by another tour at the international level." The petitioner further stated: 
Considering we have personally known of [the beneficiary's] high level of achievement as 
a musician, we have offered him a position with our company as our percussionist for this 
upcoming production and tour. Enclosed is a separate letter providing a description of the 
planned events and musical productions [in] which we hope [the beneficiary] will 
participate." 
In a February 28, 2013 letter in support of the original petition, the petitioner's president, 
stated that the beneficiary "belongs to our staff of artist ... an institution in 
Colombian folklore and of our artist [the petitioner's president], singer [and] composer ... 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
popular in Latin America, the United States and Europe. Because of [the beneficiary's] 
extraordinary abilities as a percussionist, we have required his services for our musical productions 
and presentations during events and concerts in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, 
Nicaragua, Guatemala and Europe." 
In response to the first RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter dated October 30, 2013 but 
referencing the acting director's December 19, 2013 RFE, in which the petitioner explained that it 
"will not be acting as an agent for [the beneficiary]. [The beneficiary] will be working directly for 
our musical productions and presentations and be part of our artist portfolio." 
A. Event or Events 
The first issue addressed by the acting director is whether the petitioner established that it seeks to 
engage the beneficiary's services for a specific event or events as contemplated by the regulations. 
The acting director concluded that the petitioner's submitted itinerary did not "give any details, 
such as who the beneficiary will be performing for .. . a complete address or contact person." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the itinerary clearly provided the "dates of the event, the 
location, description of the event and duties to be performed by the beneficiary." The petitioner 
further asserted as follows: 
Regarding the beneficiary's remuneration, this was clearly specified in the "summary of 
oral agreement." The agreement specified that the beneficiary's offered salary was 
$35,000 dollars per year, thus, he was going to be a direct employee with a base salary. 
Regarding the allegation that the beneficiary had repeated dates of employment for 
that is incorrect. The 
itinerary states that the beneficiary was scheduled to perform on June 5th and 6th in 
. Florida, June 22nd in on 
June 18th and 19th. 
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that it seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
percussionist for its musical production/promotion company on a full-time basis for· a period of 
three years. The petitioner indicated that it would pay the beneficiary an annual salary of 
$35,000. The petitioner's supporting letter provided a description for the beneficiary's position 
and stated that it has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $35,000 for the position. 
The petitioner also provided an itinerary of the beneficiary's musical events. From 
December 2013 until January 2015, the itinerary lists events at the petitioner's worksite, to include 
rehearsing, recording, editing and releasing the new album. From February 25, 2015 to 
June 22, 2015, the itinerary lists promotional tour dates and locations at various cities in Florida, 
the Bahamas and the Dominican Republic. From July 14, 2015 to May 10, 2016, the itinerary lists 
promotional "world tour" dates in Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, the 
Dominican Republic and the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a statement of the summary of the terms of its oral 
agreement with the beneficiary, which the petitioner signed. 
The acting director issued an RFE on December 19, 2013, instructing the petitioner to provide the 
oral agreement summary signed by the beneficiary "to verify that he agrees." The petitioner 
submitted a copy of the oral agreement summary that both parties signed. 
The acting director issued a second RFE on March 24, 2014, instructing the petitioner to provide 
an updated itinerary, noting that "[y]ou are requesting for intended dates of employment 
December 1, 2013 to November 30, 2016." The acting director erroneously indicated in this RFE 
that the submitted itinerary ends on June 22, 2015, however, the itinerary ends on May 10, 2016. 
The acting director requested that the petitioner "please submit a complete itinerary .. .. " 
The petitioner submitted an updated itinerary listing additional tour dates in Florida from 
July 4, 2016 to November 15, 2016. 
The acting director's decision concluded, in part, that the beneficiary did not "give any details, such 
as who the beneficiary will be performing for ... a complete address or contact person" but did not 
provide adequate support for her conclusion that this type of information is required by the statute and 
regulations. In addition, the acting director did not previously request this information. 
Upon review, the petitioner has satisfied its evidentiary burden by explaining the beneficiary's terms 
of employment, confirming that there is no formal written contract, and providing a detailed 
explanation of the nature and scope of the beneficiary's proposed activities, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) and (C). 
The regulatory definition of "event" at 8 C.P. R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii), which includes an "academic year" 
and, for athletes, "the alien's contract," as qualifying activities, provides only a short list of examples 
of qualifying activities and specifically states that it is not an exhaustive or definitive list, thus 
suggesting that officers would have the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis what 
constitutes a qualifying "event." This flexibility in the regulatory definition is also reflected in the 
evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) which instruct the petitioner to provide 
"an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, and to provide a copy of any itinerary." 
The regulations recognize that not every petitioner will be able to provide an itinerary or evidence 
of a list of discrete performances, competitions, or tour dates, depending on the field of 
employment. The definition of event must be interpreted broadly, as the 0-1 visa classification is 
expected to encompass a diverse array of occupations spanning the professions, athletics, and the 
arts and entertainment fields. 
Upon review the petitioner has provided a summary of the terms of its oral agreement with the 
beneficiary, a detailed description of the nature of the beneficia ry's activities on the petitioner's 
worksite and an itinerary of discrete performances or appearances for the beneficiary when acting 
as a touring musician. The petitioner has therefore fulfilled the regulatory requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii ). The acting director's determination to the contrary will be withdrawn. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
B. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria1 
The second 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 forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). In denying the petition, the acting director 
determined that the evidence submitted does not satisfy any of these criteria. After careful review, the 
evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial. 
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.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
production 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. Here, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary 
has been nominated for, or has been the recipient of, significant national or international awards or 
prizes, nor has the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will address these criteria below. 
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 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has been the percussionist in various productions for 
several Latin artists including 
and the petitioner ' s president, The petitioner submitted 
the beneficiary's Member Profil e, confirming that the 
beneficiary has been a member of since 2011, and his job duties are stated as including 
"Colombian percussionist for folklore music." 
As evidence of specific events or productions in which the beneficiary has appeared, the petitioner 
submitted the beneficiary's staff concert passes indicating that the beneficiary performed in 
in Colombia and Costa Rica at concerts featuring other artists, including 
In response to the acting director's first RFE, the petitioner stated as follows: 
Considering [the beneficiary] has been part of various renowned musical Salsa groups and 
is not a "solo" musician, we must first determine how important is the "percussion" within 
the Salsa music industry. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to satisfy or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of 
evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner also submitted information from the Internet site entitled ' 
l ' stating "[t]he most important instrumentation in salsa is the percussion." 
The petitioner also asserted that it submitted information from www.Wikipedia.org, containing the 
same quote. The record does not contain the information from Wikipedia. We note that there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from Wikipedia, which is an open, user-edited 
Internet site. Therefore, we will not assign weight to information from Wikipedia. See Laamilem 
Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008).2 Similarly, the petitioner has not 
established that experts vet the information on or that it is otherwise more reliable than 
open sites that allow all users to post information. 
The petitioner further provided a list of twelve recordings of various artists and album covers for 
the recordings crediting the beneficiary as a performer on the recordings. The petitioner stated as 
follows: 
Considering we have established the percussion instrument to be the most important 
instrument in the recording and production of salsa music, it must be determined that the 
beneficiary has performed in a lead or starring role in the above referenced productions. 
The petitioner is relying on claims from Internet sites pertaining to the critical role percussionists 
in general play in Latin music, in lieu of providing specific documentary evidence relating to any 
particular events or productions in which the beneficiary has participated or will participate. 
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'l Comm'r 
1972)). The content of the album covers and concert passes does not confirm the beneficiary' s 
performance in a lead or starring role at any particular event or production. 
In addition, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient critical reviews, advertisements, publicity 
releases, publications, contracts or endorsements to establish that the events themselves have a 
distinguished reputation, as required pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2 (o)(3)(iv)(B)(l ). For example, with the exception of some media coverage of 
performances, the petitioner has not submitted articles or reviews to establish that the beneficiary ' s 
2 See also a copy of the online content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: General_disclaimer, 
accessed on February 27, 2015, and copy incorporated into the record of proceeding noting that the content is 
subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open­
content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups 
working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project 
allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing 
found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide 
you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the 
validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have 
been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the 
state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
recordings and live shows have a distinguished reputation among industry publications that cover 
the beneficiary's geme of music. 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 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 190.) Upon review, we agree with acting director that the content of the album covers and 
concert passes does not confirm the beneficiary's performance in a lead or starring role at any 
particular event or production with a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the media coverage of the petitioner has provided translations of these 
foreign language articles. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS [the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services] shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English." While not addressed by the acting director in 
her decision, the petitioner submitted translations that do not comport with the regulation. Instead 
these translations are accompanied by two blanket certifications that do not identify the 
translations the translator is certifying or even name the petitioner or beneficiary. Moreover, 
initially the petitioner submitted two blanket certifications dated May 14, 2013 and November 22, 
2013. The certification the petitioner submitted in response to the first RFE and on appeal is a 
copy of the May 14, 2013 certification. The blanket certification without reference to specific 
translations or even the petitioner or beneficiary is not probative evidence that the certifier 
completed and is certifying all of the translations in the record. Regardless, the petitioner did not 
establish the significance of the published material as the petitioner did not provide any evidence 
of the viewership, circulation or distribution of the websites and publications. 
Further, this regulatory criterion also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary 
will perform services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a 
distinguished reputation upon approval of the petition. With respect to the beneficiary's upcoming 
performances in the United States, the evidence of record indicates that the beneficiary, as a 
percussionist, will lead instrumental recordings of the petitioner's new album, and will tour 
nationally in the United States and then internationally after the album's release. The petitioner has 
submitted a three-year performance schedule showing the beneficiary will be touring with the 
petitioner at specific performance venues. The petitioner has not submitted critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements to establish that the 
events themselves have a distinguished reputation, as required pursuant to the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
Based on the forgoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence in the form of critical reviews, 
advertisements, publications, contracts, or endorsements to establish that the beneficiary satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1) based upon his role as the percussionist for the 
studio recordings and live performances of the artists with whom he has performed. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other 
publications 
In general, in order for published material to satisfy the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), it must be by or about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be 
printed in major newspapers, magazines or other publications. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted foreign language articles pertaining to events at which the 
beneficiary performed in Colombia, Nicaragua, and Panama; however, the blanket certification 
that does not identify the translations it is certifying or name the petitioner or beneficiary is not 
probative evidence that the translator of the translations in the record certified the translations as 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The acting director further found that the content of the articles does not attest to the beneficiary's 
achievement of national or international recognition as a percussionist, since none of the articles 
specifically mention the beneficiary by name. Therefore, the acting director determined that such 
evidence is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that the submitted articles do not mention the beneficiary 
by name, but asserts that "the enclosed copies of the albums crediting the beneficiary, confirms 
that he has performed as a percussionist for these renowned artists. " The petitioner has provided 
copies of twelve record album covers that credit the beneficiary as a percussionist on the 
recording. However, an album cover constitutes neither a critical review nor published material 
about the beneficiary. 
Upon review, we agree with the director's determination that the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence to satisfy this criterion. The petitioner has not submitted any published materials that are 
by or about the beneficiary. 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 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190.) 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language of the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
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 
The petitioner has provided a total of nine testimonial letters in support of the petition. For the 
reasons discussed below, the letters do not satisfy the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) (3)(iv)(B)(5). 
As stated previously, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to US CIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that 
he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." Although not 
addressed by the acting director in her decision, the petitioner submitted translations of foreign 
language recommendation letters that do not comport with the regulation. . Instead these 
translations are accompanied by a single blanket certification that does not identify any specific 
document being translated and, accordingly, is not probative evidence that the translator of the 
translations in the record certified the translations. Because these translations do not comply with 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), they have no probative value. Regardless, the content of the letters is not 
persuasive. 
The petitioner submitted the above-referenced letter from its president, stating 
that "[b]ecause of [the beneficiary's] extraordinary abilities as a percussionist, we have required 
his services for our musical productions and presentations during events and concerts in Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Europe." does not specify 
the beneficiary's achievements as a percussionist. 
The petitioner provided a peer review letter from legal representative of 
stating that the beneficiary "has performed as a percussionist and 
assistant percussionist since February 6, 2006, for our various national and internatiom i l artists that 
we contract." praises the beneficiary's "high level of professionalism" and describes 
the beneficiary as possessing "exceptional talent" and being "in high demand for his services." 
a professional vocalist and producer, certifies that the beneficiary "has actively 
performed as a percussionist during various musical shows and productions such as a 
world festival and many others." describes the beneficiary as "well known to be a 
musician with great skill and a master with percussion instruments." 
The petitioner submitted a letter from in Miami, 
stating that the beneficiary "has performed as a percussionist for our company since 2006." 
states that that her company has contracted the beneficiary's services for the "tours and 
presentations abroad for our artist, and that "because of [the beneficiary's] high musical 
level and excellent work, [the beneficiary] is regarded as one of the best Colombian 
percussionist[ s] ." 
a music al producer with in Miami, describes the 
beneficiary as "a musician of high level with great abilities and talent as a percussionist" who is 
"highly regarded as one ofthe best." 
, a musical performer, certifies that the beneficiary "is a highly recognized 
percussionist in Colombia." states that the beneficiary's "talent, professionalism and 
honesty have earned [the beneficiary] a great reputation in the recording industry" and that the 
beneficiary has "performed with the greatest artists in Latin music." 
confirms that the beneficiary 
has worked for the orchestra as a percussionist since 2004, "during presentations at the national 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
level." attests to the beneficiary's '.'great level of professionalism," 
describing the beneficiary as a "talented musician." 
states that the beneficiary has 
performed as a percussionist "with the various groups of our label since 2008," and praises the 
beneficiary's "excellent level of music, efficiency, and creativity as an artist." 
Finally, _ states that the beneficiary 
"has performed for our group in the capacity of independent percussionist during our presentations 
at the national level since January 2002." describes the beneficiary as "one of 
the best in his specialty." 
As noted above, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B) requires that affidavits written by 
recognized experts "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 letters do not establish their authors' credentials as recognized experts, do not 
explain the manner in which they acquired information about the beneficiary, and do not specifically 
describe the beneficiary's achievements in factual terms. The letters consist of general assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's international acclaim and renown, but do not detail the beneficiary's 
specific achievements. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 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. 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. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; 
see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
The submitted reference letters all praise the beneficiary's talent and abilities. The submitted 
letters are from the beneficiary's own colleagues and personal acquaintances, and therefore do not 
demonstrate significant recognition outside of that circle. 
The letters considered above primarily contain general assertions regarding the beneficiary's talent, 
achievements or recognition, without specifically identifying his achievements and the significant 
recognition he has received for those achievements in the field. Merely repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 3 
3 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meet the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has established that it seeks to engage the beneficiary's services for a specifics 
activities or events as contemplated by the regulations. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(l)(i). The 
acting director's determination to the contrary is withdrawn. 
The petitioner has not submit ted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or at least 
three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Consequently, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts and the 
petition may not be approved. 
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.