dismissed EB-1A Case: Event Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23372895 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 3, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an event producer, seeks classification as an individual 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 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 that although the Petitioner 
met the initial evidence requirement for this classification, the record did not establish that he has 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the Director did not conduct a 
proper final merits determination. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 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 meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is 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 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, his participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field, and his 
performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. We agree that the Petitioner has met the initial evidentiary requirements for this 
classification. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
1 See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See also 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence 
Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM 
Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010) (Policy Memo), https://www.uscis.gov/ legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating 
that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to dete1mine 
if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant 
classification). 
2 
The Petitioner asserted that he has received attention from major media publications, which discuss 
him and his work as an event producer. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner has submitted 
some articles that appeared in publications, such as El Universo, El Comercio, and El Telegrafo, but 
determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the level of media attention he received is 
indicative of his status of as one of the very top event producers in the country. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in denying the petition by generally asserting 
that the evidence does not demonstrate that the level of media attention he received is indicative of his 
status as one of the very top event producers in the country. The Petitioner submitted 18 articles in 
which he is briefly quoted in publications. 17 of these 18 articles only cite, quote, or reference the 
Petitioner and do not discuss the Petitioner and his work as an event producer. These articles are about 
music concerts or live performance events, which were organized or produced by the production 
company where the Petitioner previously worked, and about singers, bands, or other musical groups 
to be performed at such concerts or events. Some of these articles also discuss ticket price, ticket sales 
location, and ticket sales dates, and these articles appear to be marketing or promotional materials for 
such concerts or events. In addition, 13 of these 18 articles do not provide the author(s) of these 
articles. These articles were published by El Universo, RPP, El Comercio, Metro Ecuador, El 
Telegrafo, Mariela TV, Taringa, Ecuador Times, and Expresiones. While the Petitioner submitted 
documentation showing that RPP, El Comercio, Metro Ecuador, and El Telegrafo are major media, 
the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to show that El Universo, Mariela TV, Taringa, 
Ecuardor Times, and Exresiones are professional publications, major trade publications, or other major 
media. Only 1 of these 18 articles, which was submitted in response to the request for evidence, 
discusses the Petitioner and his work as a media director, this article was published in El Comercio, 
which was shown to be major media, and this article includes the author. The article mentions the 
Petitioner as a media director of a production company who brought thel I to a stage in 
I I Ecuador. The article further states that the Petitioner was hired by the production company 
when he was 22 years old because he "talked concentrated," "had a virtue," and "knew how to listen." 
This article does not demonstrate that the Petitioner was hired by the production company because he 
is known to be an outstanding event producer or because of his status as one of the very top event 
producers in Ecuador. We conclude that the publication of a single article in major media, which 
discusses the Petitioner as a media director who brought a popular American I Ito a stage in a 
city in Ecuador, does not indicate that the Petitioner has achieved national or international acclaim in 
the entertainment industry as an event producer and is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner asserted that he previously participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or 
allied filed. To support this claim, the Petitioner submitted two letters from ________ 
Extra Radio S.A., which state that the Petitioner served as a jury that selects an artist to receive an 
award for musical career at the sixth edition of the Awards in 2019. The letters also state 
that the wards have been held since 2014 and that it is an event that rewards the talent of 
the Ecuadorian performers. The Director determined that although the Petitioner has acted as a judge, 
the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim resulted 
in his selection to serve as a judge of the work of others in the field. The Director added that it is not 
unusual for professionals to serve on various panels. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he had to follow a specific criterion to select the winner, including 
years in the industry, career achievements, stage presence, and music tracks released. The Petitioner 
further asserts that he was chosen due to his professional career and achievements. However, the 
Petitioner has not shown that a single instance of selecting the winner to receive the award for musical 
career at thel !Awards ceremony reflects sustained acclaim at the national or international 
level or elevates his standing as one of few top event producers in the field. 
The Petitioner asserted that he has displayed his work at live events and productions in Ecuador and 
Latin America. To support this claim, the Petitioner submitted copies of about 48 access/backstage 
badges showing the production company or authorized personnel for different music concerts and 
promotional materials for such concerts. The Director noted that only two of these badges show the 
Petitioner's name. The Petitioner also submitted two letters of support from the Director of a radio 
station and the Director of a promotion, marketing, and advertising company. One letter states that 
the Petitioner developed or worked together with various national artists, produced international shows 
and important events, and made a great contribution in the field of entertainment. The other letter 
states that the Petitioner worked in partnership with a promotion company, which produces the tours 
of prominent artists, and that the Petitioner displayed his professionalism and knowledge while 
producing each concert. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner has produced events for 
musical groups for their stage performances but found that while these events may be considered 
artistic showcases, they displayed the artist's work, not the event producer's work. As such, the 
Director determined that the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a level of distinction that sets 
the Petitioner apart from others in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the fact that the Petitioner has been selected to produce 
distinguished productions and organizations indicates that not just any event producer could have 
performed this work and he was, therefore, selected in recognition of his superior standing in the field. 
However, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support this claim. As noted above, the 
Petitioner provided various articles about music concerts or live performance events that were 
organized by a production company for which he worked as an event producer. The Petitioner 
submitted an article, which was published in El Comercio and mentions the Petitioner as a media 
director of the production company who brought a popular American! Ito a stage inl I 
Ecuador. The article states that the Petitioner was hired by the production company when he was 22 
years old because of his virtue, focus, and listening skills. This article does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner was hired by the production company because of his superior standing in the field or his 
status as one of the very top event producers in Ecuador. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also contends that because the Director did not consider the evidence related 
to the display, the decision did not sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
he is an individual of extraordinary ability. In the request for evidence, the Director acknowledged 
that the Petitioner submitted copies of over 40 access/backstage badges showing the production 
company or authorized personnel for different artists or concerts and two letters of support as evidence 
of the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. As noted above, in his decision, the 
Director acknowledged that the Petitioner has produced events for musical groups for their stage 
performances but determined that these events displayed the artist's work, not the event producer's 
work. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he displayed his work as an event producer at various 
concerts or events. The Petitioner organized concerts or events for musicians and musical groups, and 
4 
the work of these musicians and musical groups was displayed at the concerts or events. The Petitioner 
did not show that he displayed his producing skills rather than overseeing the work of others. The 
Petitioner did not show that his producing contributions resulted in his work being displayed at 
concerts or events rather than musical talents and performance skills of musicians and musical groups 
resulted in their work being displayed at their concerts or events. 
The Petitioner asserted that he has performed in a leading or critical role for I and the 
Municipal District of I The Petitioner submitted a letter from a singer, producer, director, and 
musical composer of l promotional materials showing the Petitioner's role with I 
__ from 1993 to 2006, and materials about I I reputation. The Director noted 
that the Petitioner's many roles demonstrated his experience and skills as an event producer but 
determined that the Petitioner has not showed that his work is of such significance that it led to the 
successes of various productions and musical groups. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not directly address the reasons for his 
conclusion that the Petitioner's leading or critical role does not support an overall finding of sustained 
national or international acclaim and that he is one of the very top event roducers from his home 
country of Ecuador. It appears that the Petitioner was the mana er of a popular 
Ecuadorian! lwhich was formed in I Ecuador, in ________ Although 
the record shows that the Petitioner performed in a critical role for the success of the Ecuadorian 
which which won several awards for its popularity and excellence in the music entertainment industry 
from 1999 to 2008, the record does not show that the Petitioner continues to maintain a comparable 
level of acclaim in the field as a manager. 
Regarding his leading role for the Municipal District of I the Petitioner submitted published 
materials about various cultural events, festivals, and activities held in anand an alliance between 
I land a cultural institute to strengthen the topic of culture in These articles reference the 
Petitioner as the Secretary of Culture of the Municipality. While these articles show that the Petitioner 
performed in a leading role for the Municipal District of I as the Secretary of Culture to promote 
culture within the district, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate thatl I 
has a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner asserts that the position of the Secretary of Culture for 
the Municipal District of is comparative to being the Cultural Director of I being 
the center of the arts and culture of the United States. However, the Petitioner did not supplement the 
record with independent, objective evidence showing thatl !garnered an excellent reputation as 
the center of the arts and culture of Ecuador. The Petitioner did not present sufficient documentation 
to establish the standings or statures of I 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward that goal. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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). It appears that the Petitioner has extensive experience and skills as an event 
producer, a media director, a manager of al I and the Secretary of Culture of the Municipal 
District of I As an event producer, the Petitioner has produced many concerts for various musicians 
or musical groups in Ecuador. As the Secretary of lmre of the Municipal District of the 
Petitioner organized various cultural events for However, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
5 
significance of his work as an event producer in the entertainment industry 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). Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he has garnered national or international acclaim in the field and that he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the reasons stated above. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6