dismissed O-1B Case: Opera

(b)(6)
' ". ; . -'. -· :, : : . ,�. ' 
DATE: . APR 0 3 2015> 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 
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 
Immi gration 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 ori a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form . 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing iocation, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
>:YcgJ__ .. 
.. /):T'-. r-
. Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
·--- · _, .. , ______ _ 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
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 non-profit music and cultural organization, 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 an opera singer 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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) or (B). 
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 and . that the acting director erred by dismissing the beneficiary's 
achievements while a student. The petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the 
appeal. ·For the reasons discussed below, while the beneficiary's student status does not preclude 
approval, 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 10l(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) 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, �ignificant 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. 
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)(l)-(6). If the petitioner demonstrates that certain 
criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv)(B) ofthis section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, 
the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
8 C.P.R. §214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 perfonnmg 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 mus't reflect the nature 
of the alien's achie vement 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. 
II. Discussion 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on May 9, 2014. The acting director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) 
on May 20, 2014, to which the petitioner replied. We have considered the evidence of record in its 
entirety in reaching this decision. 
According to the beneficiary's resume, she has been training in voice and/or opera in South Korea 
and the United States since at least 2007, and attended as a pre­
college, undergraduate and graduate student. ·The beneficiary has performanct:; experience at 
various venues and lists, as her leading role, her recent performance as · in the 
production of the same name, performed at the and the 
The evidence submitted in support of the petition includes 
numerous testimonial letters, programs for some of the beneficiary's performances, articles 
pertaining to the productions in which the beneficiary performed and copies of awards the 
benefiCiary received in Korea and the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In a letter dated May 6, 2014, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "is an artist of extraordinary 
ability as exemplified by her career with the 
and the J - - - - -
beneficiary "has performed as a soloist at 
famous conductor " 
among others." The petitioner also notes that the 
, and has been led in concert by the world-
The petitioner indicates that it "is a non-profit, originally producing opera company dedicated to 
the enrichment of the community through first-class presentations by internationally known artists" 
and that it is "ranked among the top four opera companies in the U.S." The petitioner states that 
the beneficiary will join the petitioner's , which it states "has engaged many of the most 
influential operatic artists today, including and ." The record 
contains petitioner's contract with the beneficiary dated February 19, 2014. The contract indicates 
that the beneficiary will be an artist in the petitioning company's studio, which the petitioner 
describes, in a February 19, 2014, letter addressed to the beneficiary, as "a directed training 
program of [the petitioning company], designed to prepare young opera and music theater artists 
for professional careers." 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The sole 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). In denying the petition, the acting director 
determined that the evidence submitted does not satisfy any of these criteria. Mter careful review, the 
evidence of record does not establish that the petitione.t: 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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will have submitted 
the requisite initial evidence 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 asserts that the beneficiary received two awards, which it contends are a 
"significant national or international award or prize" comparable to an Acadep1y Award or 
Grammy Award. Upon review, the evidence of record does not establish eligibility pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)� 
The petitioner has submitted evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the following awards: 
1. _ (which the petitioner also refers to as a 
2' 
1, High School Female Division, 1st Prize � · · 1. 
I, 
Prize, 2nd Prize ' ). 
Region, Winner $2,500 
With regard to item 1, it appears that competition for this award was by definition not open to all 
vocalists, but to a very restricted segment of vocalists-high school students. The petitioner argues 
that it is irrelevant at what age the beneficiary won the award. However, the issue is not that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
beneficiary won the award while a high school student, but that the petitioner has not shown that this 
award was open to established professionals already working in the field rather than limited to 
students. The award may well be evidence of a significant national award when compared to other 
vocalists of high school age; it does not evidence, however, that the beneficiary has received a 
significant national award when compared to all vocalists of all ages. Thus, while the restriction 
limiting this award to high school students does not diminish the merit of the beneficiary's 
achievements in the class for which the award is presented, it nevertheless does not meet the 
requirement of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J) for an award "for excellence in the field of 
endeavor." 
Item 2 above reflects local or regional, rather than national or international recognition. On 
appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that the stated mission of the 
is, as stated by the acting director, "to discover promising young opera singers 
and assist them in the development of their careers." The petitioner argues that "in reality many 
well-established singers compete in the auditions with the goal of winning prize money" and that 
"[ w]iriners of this competition are always individuals who perform at an exceptional level and 
have talent that is well-beyond the ordinary." 
However, this criterion specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be significant nationally or 
internationally in the field of endeavor, and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of 
this criterion. The record contains insufficient evidence establishing the significance and 
magnitude of the preceding competitions and the extent to which the nominees or winners of such 
awards are recognized beyond the issuing body. The petitioner did not provide general 
information about the competitions (such as the eligibility criteria, the number of entrants, or the 
percentage of entrants who earned some type of recognition). Nor is there supporting evidence 
showing that the recipients of the preceding honors were announced in major media or in some 
other manner consistent with a significant national or international award. For example, the 
winners and nominees of Emmy and Gratnmy awards receive significant national and international 
media attention as the result of their recognition, and the awards themselves are considered among 
the highest �chievements attainable in the performing arts. 
Nor can it be concluded based on the testimonial evidence in the record that such awards are 
comparable in importance to the highly recognizable awards mentioned in the. regulations. For 
· example, although Ms. , an assistant conductor and pianist at 
refers to the beneficiary as "the top prizewinner in . . . and also a 
prizewinner in , " Ms. 
does not discuss the significance of either award. Ms. _ , a collaborative pianist at 
, states that in the beneficiary won First Prize in the 
which she describes as one "of the two the largest competitions Korea offers."1 
However, M�. does not state the basis of her knowledge of the significance of the 
beneficiary's. award in Korea, and the record does not contain corroborating evidence in support of 
her assertion about the significance �f the award. The testiQionia:l evidence alone does not provide 
. 1 Ms. and Ms. also refer to the beneficiary's receipt of the 
_ . However, the evidence of record does not establish either the beneficiary's 
actual receipt of this award or the significance of the award in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
sufficient context in which to evaluate the significance of the beneficiary's awards. As such, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has won a significant national or international 
award or prize in her field. 
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 perfonne� 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 acting director determined that the petitioner's evidence does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J). The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion 
by her performances in the following productions: 
1. m 
Carolina ( ). 
2. In 
( ) . 
3·. A performer in 
4. A performer in 
5. A perfonner in 
6. A perfonner m 
) . 
7. A participant in 
production of at the 
and the South 
productio n of at 
concert of ). 
concerts of ). 
production of excerpts from 
concert of 
a public master class at with soprano 
8. A participant · in public master class with soprano 
'· 
9. A participant in a public master class at 
). 
with pianist 
The petitioner has submitted numerous programs, articles, critical reviews from classical music 
publications, and publicity releases that mention the beneficiary by name. The beneficiary is 
identified as a student of · in the singer biographies that are included in the 
programs. 
The acting director determined that the record indicates that the beneficiary sang solo parts and 
principal roles in 1 and I while the beneficiary was a student 
at . Regarding the beneficiary's other performances listed above, the beneficiary 
appears to have been one of several students featured during these programs and it cannot be 
concluded that her role was leading or starring. 
· 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The acting director also determined that, although the programs were accompanied by critical 
reviews, advertisements or publicity releases, the publications do not establish the distinguished 
reputation of the· events. As indicated in a press release for production of 
"provides frequent performance 
opportunities, featuring singers in its own recital halls, on stages, and aroun d 
" Upon review of the published materials, it appears that these performances serve as 
a showcase for students of the school's opera and its period instrument orchestra. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has performed in lead, starring 
or critical roles . for productions or events that have a distinguished reputation. All of the 
beneficiary's performances to date have been as an opera student, rather than as a professional 
opera singer, and the specific roles mentioned appear to have taken place within the context of 
student showcases rather than professional productions that have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has not established that the specific productions in which the beneficiary performed have 
a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, in order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must establish 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. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary 
will "perform multiple roles in opera productions as part of [the petitioner's] 2014-15, 2015-16 and 
2016-17 seasons." The beneficiary's first-season contract, dated February 19, 2014, indicates that 
the beneficiary will study the role of and sing the role of 
). The petitioner has provided no information regarding the beneficiary's proposed 
roles in its upcoming productio�s for the second and third seasons of the beneficiary's proposed 
employment. The petitioner has offered no additional evidence on appeal that would distinguish 
the beneficiary's proposed role as leading or starring within the company's upcoming productions. 
In sum, the petitioner has neither identified nor documented through submission of the evidence 
prescribed by re gulation, the beneficiary's previous or forthcoming lead or starring role in events 
with a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
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 plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) requires the petitioner to 
. demonstrate that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
through submission of critical reviews o� other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, �s stated in the regulations, be 
printed in major newspapers, magazines or other major publications. To qualify as major media, the 
pu�lication should have significant national or international distribution. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner has not. submitted any published materials that are specifically "about" the 
beneficiary as an individual. The petitioner submitted numerous articles that mention the 
beneficiary by name, several with photographs of the beneficiary, in reviewing productions of 
in publications including the 
The petitioner also 
provided information regarding the distribution of many of the publications. 
The articles in these publications, however, are not about the beneficiary. Rather, they only briefly 
mention the beneficiary. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published 
. material be ''about the individual." See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, 
*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
While the authors of the published material speak very positively of the beneficiary's performance 
in the productions, referring to her voice as "mesmerizing" and "ravishing," the articles do not 
recognize the beneficiary's individual achievements as a singer or the national and international 
recognition she received for such achievements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the evidentiary criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
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. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on her previous performances for 
organizations that enjoy a distinguished reputation, including 
The acting 
. director determined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary meets the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3). 
The petitioner has submitted several testimonial letters in support of the petition. However, only 
one of the letters provides information that is relevant to this criterion. Mr. _ , a 
faculty member at , states that he began working with the beneficiary in 2007 
when the beneficiary was a pre-college student at the school. Mr. _ states that he directed 
the beneficiary in "several opera scenes programs in her undergraduate years" arid states that "[the 
beneficiary] is constantly sought out by my directing colleagues as someone they must work with. 
[The beneficiary] is-often fought over as the ONLY artist who could fulfill their particular vision 
of a piece." None of the remaining letters mention the beneficiary's roles with respect to any 
specific organizations or establishments and thus do not satisfy the plain language of the criterion. 
The petitioner does not submit any additional evidence on appeal that would distinguish the 
beneficiary's proposed role as leading or starring with respect to any specific organizations or 
establishments. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Sufficient documentary evidence has been submitted to establish that 
enjoy a 
distinguished reputation in the classical music field. The remaining question is whether the 
beneficiary has performed in a lead, starring or critical tole for these establishments. 
Upon review, for the reasons discussed above with respect to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(i), the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary performed in a 
lead, starring or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The majority of the beneficiary's performances to date have been as an opera student, rather than 
as a professional opera singer, and the specific roles mentioned appear to have taken place within 
the context of student showcases rather than professional productions that have. a distinguished 
reputation. The evidence does not demonstrate that any of the beneficiary's roles for those 
organizations were in a lead or critical role. In order. to establish that the petitioner performed a 
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation, the 
petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or establishment and 
the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
· 
The letters submitted from the beneficiary's current and former teachers and colleagues provided little 
or no discussion of the beneficiary's role or. responsibilities for an organization or establishment. 
Mr. statement that his directing colleagues often consider the beneficiary "as the 
ONLY artist who could fulfill their particular vision of a piece" falls significantly short of 
establishing that the beneficiary achieved the rank of a lead or critical role within the 
establishment. 
The evidence of record also does not establish that the beneficiary's propose� role with the 
petitioning organization would satisfy the requirement that she will be performing in such a role. 
As discussed above, the beneficiary's first-season contract, dated February 19, 2014, indicates that 
the beneficiary will study the role of and sing the role of 
. The petitioner has provided no information regarding the beneficiary's proposed 
roles in its upcoming productions for the second and third seasons of the beneficiary's proposed 
employment. The petitioner has offered no additional evidence on appeal that would elucidate 
where the beneficiary's proposed position falls in the overall hierarchy of the petitioner's 
organization or her proposed impact on the organization.. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has n�t submitted evidence to. satisfy the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F�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 title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, 
. motion pictures or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported 
in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The acting director determined that the petitioner did not submit any evidence in support of this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it has satisfied this criterion without reference to 
specific evidence in the record. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4) requires 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 record includes no evidence of documented "receipts" showing that the petitioner achieved 
commercial successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. For example, there is no indication that the beneficiary's performances in 
Korea or the United States consistently drew notable crowds, were sell-out performances, resulted 
in greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature the beneficiary, or other 
evidence of tangible achievements in the classical music industry. Favorable reviews of the 
beneficiary's performances while a student at pre-professional performances are not sufficient 
evidence of a record of "major critically acclaimed success;" the petitioner did not provid� 
objective evidence to establish the significance of these favorable reviews, thus the petitioner has 
not established that they constitute a "major" success as required by the plain language of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 acting director determined that . the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
The petitioner submitted eight letters of recommendation. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the 
acting director did not take into proper consideration the reference letters submitted from "highly 
. respected, accomplished opera professionals who have the credentials to identify a truly 
extraordinary artist." The petitioner further asserts that "[a]Il o,fthese individuals have explained 
their working relationship with the beneficiary, listed her accomplishments, and identified her as 
one of the very best artists with whom they have ever worked." The letters of. support submitted 
by the beneficiary's colleagues will be addressed below. 
Ms. director of the petitioning organization, states that she first heard the 
beneficiary in audition last fall. Ms. describes the beneficiary as possessing a voice that 
is "stunningly beautiful, especially at the top of her range." She also states that the beneficiary 
demonstrated "a real dedication to her craft and an advanced understanding of how to succeed at 
the highest international level." 
· 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page ll 
Ms. an assistant conductor and pianist at , states that she first met 
the beneficiary at the school in 2010, and praises the beneficiary's "mature interpretation of music 
and the ability to captivate the audience on stage." Ms. states that the beneficiary's "successful 
debut in the opera ' · at the prestigious and 
was-, highly praised by the 
" Ms. describes the beneficiary as being "a leading soprano in her generation."· 
Mr. a faculty member at , states that he was the beneficiary's 
primary acting coach while she was a student at the school. He describes her as being "one of the 
strongest we have had in recent memory." He describes her talent as "extremely rare and highly 
exce ptiona l; paired with her outstanding training, she has developed excellent vocal and 
performance technique." Mr. states that the beneficiary "is certain to have a long, prosperous 
professional career." 
Mr. , Director of Undergraduate Opera Studies at and the 
states that he taught and directed the· beneficiary at the school, and 
that the beneficiary "proved herself an extraordinary artist." He states that he has worked with the 
beneficiary for six years on many projects, "both at and beyond," including helping 
prepare the beneficiary "for the role of at the and 
where she triumphed." Mr. describes the beneficiary as "[v]ocally truly gifted" and 
having "a �:nusicianship and sense of the dramatic that is remarkable" and "a major voice in a 
major career." 
Ms. . principal coach in the Department of Vocal Arts at 
states that she has known and coached the beneficiary for more than five years. Ms. 
describes the beneficiary as "one of the most exceptional talents I have met," "a gifted dramatic 
persona" having "a deep understanding of musical styles and· the importance of textual nuances," 
and possessing "a superb soprano." 
Ms. Master Coach-Breath Specialist, states that she has worked with the 
beneficiary for two years. Ms. praises the beneficiary's "unique dramatic flair" and 
describes her as "among the finest singers I have encountered," "a world-class artist with an 
impressive vocal technique," and "one of the opera world's rising stars." 
Mr. _ , a faculty member at states that he began working with 
the beneficiary in 2007 when the beneficiary was a pre-college student at the school. Mr. 
states that he direCted the beneficiary in "several opera scenes programs in her 
undergraduate years" and states that "[the beneficiary] is constantly sought out by my directing 
colleagues as someone they must work with. [The beneficiary] is pften fought over as the ONLY 
artist who could fulfill their particular vision of a piece." He describes the beneficiary as a "world­
class actor/singer" and her talents as "EXTREMELY rare in the profession." 
Ms. a collaborative pianist at ' , describes .. the beneficiary as 
"years ahead qf most of her also exceptional colleagues." She explains that , is 
"one of eleveri major cultural institutions at 
· 
" ap.d "is the only school 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
, Page 12 
within the other performance organizations." She states that the beneficiary's "American premiere 
performances in 2013 of the leading role in ... ' at the... - ... as well 
as at were critically acclaimed."· Ms. describes 
the ·beneficiary as "one of the very most interesting talented, outstanding unusually and 
distinctively gifted sopranos of her international generation before the public today." 
Upon review, th� evidence of record supports the acting director's determination that the submitted 
evidence does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). As noted above, to 
satisfy this evidentiary criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government 
agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which he is engaged. Any testimonials must be 
in a form which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's 
achievements. 
users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is 
ultim�tely responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Jd. . The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility;. users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. users may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. ld. at 795; 
see also Matter of Soffici, 22 r&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. All of the submitted 
letters are from the beneficiary's own current and former teachers and colleagues, and therefore do 
not demonstrate significant recognition outside of that circle. 
While reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in 
· assigning weight to certain evidence, many of the submitted reference letters did not address the 
beneficiary's specific achievementsin the field of opera. Those letters that did address specific 
achievements of the beneficiary, such as her participation in the operas and ', 
do not explain how the beneficiary's achievements to date have received significant recognition 
from organizations, critics, government agencies or other recognized experts in the field. 
Although two of the testimonials mention the beneficiar)r's singing awards, received in Korea in 
and New York in , respectively, as discussed above, the scope and significance of these 
competitions has not been established through any corroborating evidence. The submitted evidence 
does not. establish that the prizes rise to the level of a "significant recognition for achievements from 
· orgariizations in the field'' pursuant to the plain language of the criterion. 
We. acknowledge the petitioner's assertions on appeal that "an F -1 student visa does not· disqualify . 
one for Extraordinary Ability" and that "[a]lthough the beneficiary recently. completed a master's 
degree'program on an F-1 visa ... [w]hile enrolled at [the beneficiary] simultaneously went 
-. ' 
' 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
about a notable professional career, far beyond that 'ordinarily encountered." However, it remains the 
petitioner's burden to establish the beneficiary's significant recognition for achievements in the field. 
As discussed, the testimonial evidence submitted does not meet this burden. Overall, while the 
beneficiary has earned the respect of her colleagues and well-known figures in the art of opera, the 
evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has received significant 
recognition for achievements in the field. 
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) that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for 
achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the 
field. 
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. 
The sixth and final criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary 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. The 
acting director determined that the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary meets the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6) . 
. The petitioner focuses on the beneficiary's hourly wage in asserting that the petitioner's intended 
· salary is high in relation to others in the field. On appeal the petitioner, through counsel, states as 
follows; 
[The beneficiary's] total compensation for each year of her. work at [the petitioning 
organization] comes to $31,700. This amount is for nine months (39 weeks of work), with a 
maximum of 36 hours each week. The hourly wage, therefore, is $22.5 8/hr., well above the 
Level 3 Wage for Musicians and Singers in the area, and near to the Level4 Wage. 
First, the beneficiary's salary as indicated on the Form 1-129 and in the contract will be $30,300 
per year. The petitioner has added to that salary an amount of $1400, stated in the beneficiary's 
contract to be a reimbursement "fund ... made available to [the beneficiary] for costs related to [her] 
career development.'' The contract also states that "[i]n no instance will reimbursement be made 
without supporting receipts" and that."the Director's decision as to whether reimbursement will be 
made will be final." The beneficiary's contract does not refer to the $1400 fund as part of the 
beneficiary's salary, for example at part II.C, instead referring to the beneficiary's "$30,300 stipend." 
The contract makes clear that the $1400 is a maximum available amount, and that any submitted 
expenses may not be approved for reimbursement. Also, the beneficiary may not have $1400 in 
career-related expenses. In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is a meaningful 
comparison to compare the beneficiary's wages plus expenses to other wages in the field. For these 
reasons, we conclude that the $1400 amount is too speculative and not properly included in the 
beneficiary's salary for the purpose of calculating her hourly wage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Further, counsel's statement that the beneficiary will be employed 36 hours per week as opposed to 
the standard 40 hours per week is not supported by any evidence in the record. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of La ureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Regardless, assuming that the petitioner's calculation of the beneficiary's hourly wage was 
sufficiently supported by the evidence of record, the petitioner has not established this salary is high 
in relation to others in the field. As a point of comparison, the petitioner submitted salary 
information from the Foreign Labor Certification Online Wage Library, www .flcdatacenter.com 
(accessed on May 28, 2014) for Musicians and Singers in the 
_ _ 
Texas area. According to this information, a Level 3 singer earned $18.74 hour, and a Level 4 singer 
earned $24.08. Therefore, the beneficiary's wage of $22.58 hour falls between the average wage for a 
Level 3 and Level 4 singer in the area of proffered employment. The wage does not appear to be a 
particularly "high salary" for a singer in Houston. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 
8 .C.F.R. 214 .2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not submitted 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, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361; Ma.tter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013); Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
· .. ·