Singer

The Petitioner, a singer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim, and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria set forth in the regulations for this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

Law

An alien is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act if: they have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; they seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States would substantially benefit the country.

The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can provide evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they must document that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at p. 2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles).

Where a petitioner demonstrates that they meet these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality ofthe material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that they are among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding USCIS' two-step analysis of extraordinary ability "consistent with the governing statute and regulation").

Analysis

The record reflects that the Petitioner is a sin er who erforms in Belarus with the cover band I and as a solo artist under the nam ........,-----~~~ he Petitioner states she intends to continue her music career as a singer in the mte tates, w 1 e pursuing other projects that rely upon her background in music and voice training, including presentation of workshops and masterclasses, music education initiatives, and teaching vocal techniques for therapeutic purposes. A. Evidentiary Criteria

Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She claims that she meets seven of the ten criteria, including: lesser nationally recognized awards; memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements; published materials in professional or major media publications; judging the work of others in her field; original contributions of major significance; performance in leading or critical roles; and commercial success in the performing arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(v), (viii) and (x). 1 The Director, after reviewing the Petitioner's initial evidence and her response to a request for evidence (RFE), concluded that she satisfied only one of the seven claimed criteria. Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner established that she has participated as a judge of the work of others in her field and thus satisfied the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner met this criterion.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to review and analyze all evidence submitted in support of the remaining six criteria and erroneously concluded that she is not eligible for the classification sought.

After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Accordingly, she has not established her eligibility for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. We discuss the individual criteria in tum below.

1. Evidence of Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards or Prizes

The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.

........~...._.,eal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets this criterion based on her receipt ofthd I .,___ __._,award as a member the bandI L The record contains a diploma signed by~ .......,_ __.c.ai;:;:,n his capacity as "project producer" and deputy director ofl I 1 Belarus. This evidence establishes that the Petitioner, as a member of the winning band, won the~------~contest. However, for the reasons discussed below, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that this award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of music.

In evaluating whether a given award or prize satisfies this criterion, we consider factors such as the criteria used to grant it and documentation of its national or international significance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l) (providing guidance on evaluating initial evidence of extraordinary ability under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). Qualifying awards may include, for example, certain awards from well-known national institutions or well-known professional associations. National recognition is most often associated with awards given to individuals at the highest level in a given field, but in some instances other awards, such as those granted to new players or "rookies" in major sports leagues, may gamer national or even international media coverage. Id. The Petitioner provided a letter froltj Iwho states he has been working in the music industry in Belarus since 2005 and is the "owner and producer" of thel Icontest. He describes the contest as "the national annual contest of cover artists" and the largest and oldest competition of its kind in Belarus. 3 According to his letter, the "main task of the competition is to discover the best musicians in the country and give a chance to the new young talents to show themselves and to become a part of the music industry" in Belarus. I Istates that in 2017, 48 cover groups from throughout the country competed and "more than 20,000 spectators attended the project."

Additional supporting evidence in ""h......._....,r......,,,u..>.l...............,......,.,.,,.: a short promotional article for the .... l contest published on the website in 2012, which announced a erformance of several contest participants at a venue called an article from the websit about the I I contest won by the ban screensh .......,_____....., website and a social media post with a photo of their pnze tro h • stagram post with 43 "likes" from the account J lannouncing '-----~ as the winner of I I'; a short recap of th~ ]contest that appears to have been published 2 In her response to the Director's R • ility under this criterion based on her receipt of a grant or scholarship for her studies at the • • 2004. She does not pursue this claim on appeal therefore we limit our discussion to evidence related to the~ _____,award.

'--------,-,~1,states the competition has not been held since 2020 due to political conditions in Belarus. p. 4 on a forei n social media website I I; screenshots from a website belonging to the group L---r----...... ·~a=n~d~i 7 nformation regarding individuals named inl.... ___~~ letter as jury members for the._________. contest.

While it appears that th1 lwas a live music contest open to cover bands from throughout Belarus, the record does not demonstrate, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that the contest's winner receives a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in the field of music. The Petitioner emphasizes that it is the oldest and largest contest for cover artists in Belarus, but this does not demonstrate the national or international recognition associated with the award. The record does not, for example, contain any informati9n regarding tbf rules for entering the contest or the criteria used to select competitors. Based onl.....-----~Jtatement that the contest provides an opportunity to discover new talent, the record does not demonstrate that it is intended for artists who are already established in the Belarusian music industry.

We acknowledg~ Iassertion that the 2017 edition of thel !contest drew 20,000 spectators. However, he does not further elaborate and this claimed audience size is not corroborated in the record. Rather, the few short articles submitted about the contest suggest that it has been held at venues that included a bar :\pd a r:stam:nt, rather than large music venues. Further, most of the submitted publicity about thel.... _~-..---~Jcompetition is from the former winners' own social media pages or from the contest orgamzer s own site. This type of publicity is insufficient to demonstrate that the award is nationally recognized or well-known beyond the contest's own participants. Finally, none of the submitted media coverage about thel !contest relates to the 2017 edition won by the Petitioner's band.

As noted, the USCIS Policy Manual provides examples of potentially qualifying awards and prizes, noting that they may include certain awards from well-known national institutions or professional associations, or awards that gamer national or international media coverage. Here, the evidence shows that the Petitioner's band won a contest that is privately owned and produced b~ IAlthough he indicates that he has worked in the Belarusian music industry since 2005, the record does not contain, for example, evidence that he enjoys a natiaoa) reo~tatiao in the industry. Further, as discussed, the record does not demonstrate that theI Icontest received national or international media coverage or contain other evidence of the award' s national significance. Again, the fact that the competition is open to participants from throughout Belarus, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the prize or award received by the contest's winner is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of music.

For the reasons provided, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).

2. Evidence of Membership in Associations

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) calls for "documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." p. 5 I

The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on her membership in the .... l _________,

I which is described in the record as an "All-Russian public-state organization." She provided a certificate to verify her membership, as well as an "Honorary Diploma" this organization issued to her in recognition of "her fruitful work, high professionalism, active civic position and participation in [the] spiritual and moral upbringing [ of the] younger generation."

While the evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's membership in th~ Iit does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this organization "requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts" in the field as an essential condition for membership.

A submitted excerpt from the website of thel Iindicates that it is the "number l" women's organization in the Russian Federation with "tens of thousands" of members. The Petitioner provided a copy of the organization's statute, which describes its purpose and its membership requirements. According to article 2 of the statute, "the purpose of the Union is to promote the improvement of the status of women in society, their role in political, economic, social and cultural life of the country, and to protect their interests." According to article 3, membership is open to citizens of the Russian Federation who are at least 18 years old, who share the goals of the union, will abide by its charter and take part in its activities. There is no language in the statute that indicates or even implies that outstanding achievements in a particular field are a prerequisite for membership in thel I

The statute further states that the admission of new members is "made by the decision of the Bureau ofthe Union, the Board ofthe regional branch, the Council ofthe local branch, on the basis ofa written application of a citizen." The statute does not indicate that members of these bodies are recognized national or international experts in the Petitioner's field or identify the criteria on which they base their membership decisions. The Petitioner provided information regarding the professional background and achievements of the chairperson of the I Ibut the record does not demonstrate that this individual is responsible for making decisions regarding admission of members. The Petitioner nevertheless maintains on aJpeal that "only significant professionals can become members of thel ' She contends that the previously provided evidence demonstrates that prospective members "should have a contribution to their field, demonstrating leadership, excellence and the ability to promote the Union's goals," and that the criteria for membership "ensure that members of the Union are individuals with notable achievements and a commitment to advancing the TJnian's mission and valuT." Again, the Petitioner has not submitted supporting evidence from thel indicating that "a record of leadership and excellence" or "notable achievements" in the Petitioner's field are required for membership in this organization. Further, while the Petitioner emphasizes that the organization's promotion of "social and cultural" life is related to rroe af bet endeavors in tjie field of music, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the~---------~is an association "in the field in which classification is sought."

Fina))v we acknow)ecfoe evidrce indicating that the Petitioner received an "honorary diploma" from thel and was featured in a published article in the organization's magazine.

She maintains that this additional documentation supports her claim that the union has recognized her p. 6 outstanding achievements. However, demonstrating eligibility under this criterion requires evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements in her field from all members as a condition for granting membership. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to make such a showing or otherwise demonstrate that her membership in the Women's Union of Russia satisfies all requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

3. Evidence of Published Materials

The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the person's work in the field for which classification is sought. In evaluating whether a submitted publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(1).

,-L......._...L...1...u.J.Ju...wL.1.J......L.LLI'-LJI.JL.lo..l.>.l.L....L-""-'-L...W'-4cles ins _.,_....~~iterion, including: (1) an article tit;-ale=d~ t------"l-----_Jpublish 2 22 i f the magazine rf.._·.... h...,_____, ,__--.-------"--a_,nd (2) an article titled ,___________~published in th_.___..----013 issue of,__ _. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because she did not submit evidence demonstrating that either article was published in a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media.

On apfea) the Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates the magazine of the Iis "a professional publication associated with a major national organization, making it a suitable platform for highlighting notable achievements and contributions in various fields." She also asserts that it is a major media publication based on the national scop~ organization that publishes it. In addition, referencing previously provided evidence froml__J magazine's Facebook page, the Petitioner asserts that the publication's "goal to provide quality content and inspiration makes it a professional and major media within Belarus."

While both submitted articles are about the Petitioner and relate to her work in the field of music, she has not adequately supported her claim that the articles were published in professional publications or major trade publications, or that either magazine qualifies as "major media" as required by the plain language of the regulation.

With respect to the article published by the,__________~ the Petitioner submitted a page from the "About the Union" section of the organization's website, and a copy of the organization's statute. This evidence does not establish that the I Iis a professional association based on its membership requirements. Further, the record does not contain supporting evidence that specifically references its publication of a magazine or the intended audience of that magazine. The evidence therefore does not establish that the intended or targeted audience of the magazine includes members of a specific profession or otherwise establish that the magazine is a "nrofessiona) nub)ication " Further, although the Petitioner contends that the magazine of the I qualifies as "major media" based on the national scope of the organization that publishes it, she has not offered evidence of the magazine's relative circulation, readership or I p. 7 viewership in support ofthis assertion and therefore has not met her evidentiary burden. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l).

With respect to I !magazine, the record similarly lacks evidence of the publication's intended audience or relative circulation, readership, or viewership. As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's supporting evidence rela~is publication is limited to screenshots from its Facebook page. Based on this limited evidence,L_Jappears to be a Belarusian lifestyle, beauty or fashion magazine, with the goal of being "a source of inspiration and aesthetic pleasure for its audience." The submitted materials do not establish that it qualifies as major media based on its circulation or that it can be deemed a professional publication based on its intended audience.

For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).

4. Evidence of Performance in Leading or Critical Roles

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation."4 For a leading role, USCIS considers whether the evidence establishes that the person was a leader within the organization or establishment, based on factors such as the person's title and job duties. For a critical role, USCIS considers whether the evidence establishes the person has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or establishment's activities. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). In evaluating whether an organization has a distinguished reputation, we rely on the dictionary definition of "distinguished," which means "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." Id. Relevant factors for evaluating the reputation of an organization can include the size of its customer base or relevant media coverage, its relative size and longevity. Id.

0~ arnea) the Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on her leading and/or critical roles with_ , Iand based on her collaboration with the author I ,........:..:....::..:;:;;:;..!::::=====;1------------- '-·---~ The evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's leading role as a founder and lead singer oj._______, As evidence of the band's distinguished reputation, the Petitioner initially provided photographs of its live performances and information about the band from the Belarusian websites andl ~ I These websites feature profiles for various performing artist._s_a_v_a-il-ab_l_e_f_o_r_h_ir___,e and facilitate their bookings for corporate and social events. The information provided on the ~ c===J..includes a biography provided byl IThe biography mentions the band'L_j ~award, the group's stylish look, its use of live sound and repertoire of over 100 hit songs, and its "friendly weekday prices" with booking costs starting at $1,000 or 2,600 Belarusian rubles. 4 A petitioner may also meet this criterion by providing evidence that they have performed in a leading or critical role for "a division or department" of an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l).

The Director advised the Petitioner in the RFE that she should provide objective documentary evidence of the distinguished reputation of any organization that employed her in a leading or critical role. In response, the Petitioner asserted that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the band's distinguished reputation. She also added that the band has been "invited to perform at various national and state events, which ... contributes to the cultural development of the nation and inspires the younger generation of musicians." However, the RFE response did not document the band's participation in "national and state events," identify these events, or indicate how its participation in such events demonstrates its distinguished reputation.

Threfnre the Director concluded, and we agree, that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate tha .________,enjoys a distinguished reputation marked b~ "eminence rstinction, or excellence." While the record shows that the band won an award in the I contest and appears to be regularly booked to perform at various types of social events, the record does not contain, for example, any independent media coverage of the band or any of its performances, or other relevant evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner states that she is submitting new evreuce iu tbe £a~ of "letters of gratitude" from "nationally important organizations" as evidence of._______. distinguished reputation. However, because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence in response to the RFE, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.Evidence submitted too late See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(11) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice ofthe required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Nevertheless, we note that the "letters of gratitude" submitted for the first time on appeal are addressed to the Petitioner and do not mention! lor the group's performances at the referenced events; rather, the letters recognize her work as a solo performer. We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that she satisfies this criterion based on her group and solo performances at thel IThe record contains a letter from this venue confirming th:::it the Petitiouj has performed at concerts and events held there, as both a solo artist and as a member o~.________,_ The letter, however, does not detail how the Petitioner's performances at this venue are tantamount to having a "leading role" for this establishment. Nor does it explain how the Petitioner, based on her performances, has contributed in a way that is significant to the outcome of the establishment's activities, such that her role could be considered "critical." In addition, the record lacks independent evidence demonstrating thatl Ienjoys a distinguished reputation.

The evidence the Petitioner provided consists of the referenced letter and excerpts from the establishment's own website.

Finally, the Petitioner claims on appeal that she meets this criterion based on her co))ahoratjon with the autho~....----,----,----'~n a "developmental course for children" called!

The Petitioner submitbd a screenshot from the website of an online reta· • • , • ren's books in thd ries written byl ~nder the pen name nd a copy o~!--..,....,....-----,,-----'~iography. She also provided a letter from'----,----~...,.. ho summarizes her professional background as both a children's book author and as a producer of other media content for children. I hates that she considers the Petitioner to be "our resident expert in the field of children's music content," and that she is a "reliable partner and member of the creative team." She does not describe in detail in what capacity the Petitioner was employed by her, what specific duties I p. 9 she performed, or how her role in thel ~roject was a leading role or one that was critical to its outcome. Further, the record contains insufficient evidence to support a finding that I lthel Iproject can be considered an "organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation."

Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

5. Evidence of Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires "evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales." The Petitioner claims that her cover band, I I"has achieved commercial success by participating in numerous concerts and production of music albums, which recJiyed high le]el of popularity among music lovers." The Petitioner provided information regarding._ ______._ from the band's website and photographs of the band's performances, as well as a photograph of a compact disc (CD) she released as a solo artist, information regarding thel Itestimonial letters, and other information. The Director concluded that she did not meet this criterion because she did not provide the required evidence of box office receipts or sales of her music.

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Direrar erred in drermining that she did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion, noting that._ _______._ "commercial appeal and success" are evidenced through its "unique market position and performance quality," which "draw larger audiences and increasin~ box office receipts." The Petitioner farther maintains that her band's receipt of thd.________._ award has contributed to its cormercia) success through "jncreased bookings and audience engagement" while its performance at th ._ _____________,_ of the Republic of Belarus indicates its "significant commercial success." Finally, she emphasizes that, as a solo artist, she has extensive experience as a backing vocalist for "renowned artists" and has released a CD, thus "confirming her role as an author of music and lyrics."

While the Petitioner asserts thatl Ienjoys high ticket sales for its live performances, she has not provided the objective evidence of commercial success required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. In lieu of providing box office receipts or similar evidence, the Petitioner provided a letter from the deputy managing director of thel lindicating that she has performed at this 3500-seat venue. This letter does not provide sufficient support for the Petitioner's claim that she or her band have achieved commercial success based on ticket sales or box office receipts for their live performances. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the director of I Iwho states the Petitioner was a headliner at thd lof the Republic of Belarus in 2021 and that the event was attended by 14,800 people. The Petitioner provided photographs of her performance at the event, but the record does not contain any additional information about this event, corroborating evidence of the audience it attracted, and the required evidence of ticket sales or box office receipts.

The Petitioner also emphasizes her release of music as a solo artist and has submitted a photograph of her CD. This evidence is insufficient to satisfy this criterion, absent evidence that her CD achieved p. 10 sales that are indicative of commercial success in the performing arts. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that she has also worked on the projects of other "renowned artists." She has not shown through supporting evidence that she has been credited for her work or provided evidence of box office receipts or music sales in support of her claim that she can meet this criterion based on her work as a backup vocalist in live performances or studio recordings.

The Petitioner requests that we consider her band's award and "unique market position," her release of original music, and other factors in evaluating whether she meets this criterion, but the language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is clear and does not require consideration of evidence beyond documentation of sales of recorded music and box office receipts for live performances. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. B. Summary of Evidentiary Criteria and Reserved Issue Although the Petitioner established that she has participated as a judge of the work of others in her field, the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets any of the five evidentiary criteria discussed above. Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), detailed discussion of the claimed criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Accordingly, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, this remaining criterion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).

Conclusion

The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and concluded it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has the sustained acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner demonstrated that she has built a solid reputation as a singer and live performer and received some recognition in her field. However, she has not shown that the significance ofher work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered sustained national or international acclaim in her field, and that she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2).

For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.