已经看过了,但是我的情况比较特殊。想知道 pianist 是否适用 8 CFR 204.5 (h)(3) (vii) Evidence of the display of the beneficiary's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 首先,问了好几个律师,有的说行,有的说不行。 然后也google了,有从事performing art 的人cliam这一条,确实曾收到rfe said this category tends to "apply to those only in the visual arts not performing arts"。但是,同时也有案例说claim这一条成功了,并且说USCIS (AAO) appeal case example 中就有明确的解释这一条适用的occupation。 实在是混乱,所以想找到官方的司法解释才放心,不想碰运气。
【在 d********g 的大作中提到】 : 已经看过了,但是我的情况比较特殊。想知道 pianist 是否适用 8 CFR 204.5 (h)(3) : (vii) Evidence of the display of the beneficiary's work in the field at : artistic exhibitions or showcases. : 首先,问了好几个律师,有的说行,有的说不行。 : 然后也google了,有从事performing art 的人cliam这一条,确实曾收到rfe said : this category tends to "apply to those only in the visual arts not : performing arts"。但是,同时也有案例说claim这一条成功了,并且说USCIS (AAO) : appeal case example 中就有明确的解释这一条适用的occupation。 : 实在是混乱,所以想找到官方的司法解释才放心,不想碰运气。
找到了: The interpretation that 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts)is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). 估计所有搞音乐的都不能claim 8 C.P.R. §204.5(h)(3)(vii)了