dismissed EB-1A Case: Guitarist

MATTER OF S-A-X-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a guitarist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers previously submitted documentation and a brief, contending that he 
meets at least three of the ten criteria and will work as a guitarist once admitted to the United States. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of S-A-X-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First , a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a guitarist who has performed with the musical group, Because he has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills four criieria. We have reviewed all of the 
evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards.for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that his receipt of the · at in 
2006 and 2008 meets this criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate 
2 
.
Matter of S-A-X-
that his prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 1 The 
record reflects that the Petitioner provided screenshots from his own Y ouTube channel of him 
winning the awards at the ceremony, and a "Letter of Acknowledgement" from an unidentified 
individual of the human resource department of who "expressed [their] 
heartfelt appreciation" for the Petitioner receiving the awards. Although the documentation relates 
to the Petitioner receiving the awards, the record does not establish that they received national or 
international recognition for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he fulfills this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner argues that he "submitted a lot of media coverage about [him] with [his] original 
filing of the 1-140 as well as with [his] Response to the [request for evidence]." The record, 
however, does not reflect that he provided published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, which included the title, date, and author.2 With the 
exception of two screenshots and an unidentified publication, the record reflects that the Petitioner 
submitted approximately 16 screenshots from various websites reflecting coverage of the band, 
rather about him. Although the Petitioner is mentioned as a member of the band, the 
screenshots discuss and are about the band. For instance, the Petitioner presented a screenshot from 
epaper.tribune.com.pk entitled, "Keeping the game strong, set for another US tour after 
treating with live music, workshops." While the screenshot shares quotes from the 
band members, it is about performing in the United States. Articles that are not about a 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. 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 regarding a show are 
not about the actor). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the Petitioner to "include the title, 
date, and author of the material." 3 The Petitioner contends that "[t]he coverage has names of authors 
and just to name two and in places it only says 'our correspondent' as is 
the general practice in Pakistan." As it relates to screenshots listing the author as "our 
correspondent," the Petitioner did not identify the correspondent who authored the material. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not support his assertion regarding the general practice in Pakistan 
with corroborating evidence. Moreover, the Petitioner did present seven screenshots with named 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitt ?d with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter .'2 2, AFM Updc .·e ADI /-/4 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
3 Id. 
,., 
.,) 
.
Matter ofS-A-X-
authors rather than "our correspondent," which appears to dispute his assertion that authors are not 
named in Pakistan. 
Further, although the Petitioner argues that "[ e ]very piece of the media coverage has a date on top," 
the record reflects that only six screenshots include the date of the material. We note that at the 
initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner submitted screenshots with "12/2/2016" listed on top of the 
documents. Similarly, in response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner provided several 
screenshots with "12/14/2017" posted listed on top. However, these dates appear to be the dates the 
screenshots were printed rather than the authored dates of the articles. In addition, even if 
"12/14/2017" was the date the screenshots were authored, they occurred after the filing of the 
• . 4 
pet1t1on. 
The Petitioner maintains that "[t]he newspapers and television channels [he] mentioned have 
circulation and audience going into hundreds of thousands and millions m case of TV viewers." 
First, the record does not reflect that he provided any published material from television channels, 
nor did not he present evidence supporting his assertion that the television channels have millions of 
viewers. Second, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from the Center for Strategic & International 
Studies indicating that "Dawn News is second in the English category and sixth in the national with a 
circulation of I 09,000." The record, however, does not include evidence of published material from 
Dawn News. Instead, the record indicates that the Petitioner presented five screenshots posted on 
dawn.com. Although the Petitioner offered an unidentified document with viewing statistics for that 
website, he did not demonstrate that the information shows that it is a major medium. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner submitted three screenshots that reflect published material about 
him. Specifically, the Petitioner provided screenshots from christiansinpakistan.com, 
epaper.tribune.com/pk, and an unidentified publication. However, the material does not contain the 
date and/or author. 5 Furthermore, the Petitioner did not estabiish that the two screenshots and the 
unidentified publication were published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation, either individual~y or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of spec(fication for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
4 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the inm,igration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
5 We note that the record reflects only three screenshots (tribune.corn' ; tribune.com.pk 
and tribune.corn.pk , that contain both the date and author of the 
material; however, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the screenshots reflect published material about him, nor did 
he show the websites are major media. 
4 
Matter of S-A-X-
The record contains evidence showing that the Petitioner participated as a judge for a talent show of 
aspiring young singers in Pakistan. Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that he satisfies this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Although not claimed by the Petitioner on appeal, the record contains evidence that the Petitioner 
performed before audiences at concerts and other music events. As such, the Petitioner established 
that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner contends that he submitted evidence of his "sustained presence on Y ouTube and Coke 
Studio." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of the Petitioner's 
commercial success, "as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video 
sales." Moreover, the evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect a 
petitioner's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts.6 Although the Petitioner provided screenshots from YouTube and Coke Studio, he did not offer 
evidence of his commercial successes through receipts or sales. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his presence on Y ouTube or Coke Studio resulted in a volume of sales reflecting 
commercial successes compared to other musicians or guitarists. For these reasons, the Petitioner 
did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. 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. 7 Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. 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 has not shown that the significance of his artistic accomplishments is indicative 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 11-12. 
7 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
do not need to determine whether he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
5 
Matter ofS-A-X-
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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and 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 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-A-X-, ID# 1567873 (AAO Sept. 24, 2018)