dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7722140 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 11, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a violinist, 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 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 petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 they must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has been the concertmaster (first violin) for the.__ _____________ ____. 
since 2009. The Petitioner has not stated specific plans for employment in the United States. 
Before proceeding to specific evidentiary issues, we note the Director's finding that translations submitted 
by the Petitioner were not properly certified. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires every 
submitted foreign language document to include a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. The Director stated that "[t]he submitted translation[s] 
are not properly certified," but did not specify how they are deficient. 
The translator claimed fluency in English and Chinese, and certified that "all of the documents that are 
translated from Chinese to English attached herein are true and accurate." The Petitioner asserts that the 
certification meets all material requirements. In reviewing the Director's decision, the Director did not 
identify any specific translations that would have had greater weight if the translator's certification had 
been worded differently. The Director did not deny any regulatory criterion based solely on the 
certification of the translations. Therefore, even if the Director required too strict a standard for the 
wording of the certifications, this issue did not change the outcome of the decision. 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Petitioner initially claims to have met seven criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
2 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner no longer claims commercial success in the performing arts, 1 but asserts that he meets the 
other six claimed criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner 
has met two of the criteria (the fourth and the eighth). 
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 states that an album of his dusic "~eceiJd the.__ ________ ___. Albums of the 
Year Award,' an award organized by thl Musicians Association. . . . It is a recognized, 
authoritative award in the music industry." The Director determined that "this appears to be a local 
award." 
The Petitioner, on appeal, asserts that the award is not local, but rather an "international prize" available 
to "ethnic Chinese world-wide." The Petitioner cites two examples of claimed international winners, but 
neither example is persuasive. One winner "is a Taiwanese singer-songwriter." The People's Republic 
of China does not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, 2 and therefore the eligibility of a Taiwanese 
musician for a Chinese award is not evidence of the award's international character. The second example 
cited on appeal is "of Mongolian ethnicity," but the Petitioner had previously identified this same 
performer as "a Chinese singer, songwriter and composer of Mongolian ethnicity." 
The Petitioner does not cite any evidence that shows the award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
A list of winners does not establish the required recognition. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not provided 
information from the awarding entity to show the criteria for the award. 
The Petitioner has not established that he won a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in his field. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner initially claimed membership in two associations: the 
I I and the Chinese Musicians Association, but on appeal he does n~o-t-pu_r_s_u_e_a_n_y_c_l_a-im_a_b_o_u_t-th-e~ 
latter membership. Therefore, we will only discuss the Petitioner's claim with respect to I I 
1 Because the Petitioner does not contest this issue on appeal, we consider it to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty 
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also, Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at 
*1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
2 See https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/ (last visited Feb. 26, 2020) 
3 
According to a translated printout from the organization's website, a musician seeking to join the .... l _ ___, 
must reside inJ land meet one of the following requirements: 3 
Top three winners of major professional competitions held at or above the provincial and 
municipal levels (including winners of international professional competitions and the 
winners of third-class or above national professional competitions). 
[H]ave had a concert of individual works sponsored by a provincial or municipal level or 
above and received favorable comments. 
Amateur music workers and folk artists (including music intangible cultural heritage 
inheritors) with high artistic level and cultivation, who are recognized by the society and 
are representative. 
Music professionals with a bachelor's degree or above or an intermediate level or above, 
and having certain influence in relevant professional fields inJ I 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the ~ requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The Director 
stated that the Petitioner relied on "material ... from Wikipedia and web portals or domains, which has 
no probative value in this proceedings [sic]," and on "improperly translated documents." 
While user-edited sites such as Wikipedia are not reliable as primary sources of information, this is not a 
blanket disqualification of all web-based information and evidence. An organization's own website is 
generally a reliable source for information about that organization's membership requirements, unless 
there are specific reasons to doubt the information on that website. And the Director did not specify what 
documents were "improperly translated," or identify specific shortcomings in the translations. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner's appeal relies on an incomplete and selective reading of the Os 
membership requirements. ~Petitioner, on appeal, quotes from the requirements, but omits the 
information showing that the[__J is a local organization. Also, throughout the proceeding, the Petitioner 
has worded one of the membership criteria as follows: 
Possess music-related bachelor's degree and have practiced music professionally for more 
than 5 years ( or work at a mid-level music job) and has great influences in the musical 
field. 
The printout from D's website, however, does not show such a requirement. The closest thing to that 
passage is as follows: 
Music professionals with a bachelor's degree or above or an intermediate level or above, 
and having certain influence in relevant professional fields inl I 
3 Other requirements apply to non-performers employed in music-related fields, such as composers, educators, and recording 
engmeers. 
4 
"Certain influence" is not synonymous with "great influences." There are several different ways to 
qualify forD membership, and they require different levels of achievement and distinction. It is 
therefore tgnifirnt that the Petitioner has not established which of these qualifications he met in order 
to join th 
Also, the Petitioner did not establish that recognized national or international experts tdge the 
qualifications of candidates forc=]membership. The requirement that members reside in I 
points strongly to the Obeing a local organization rather than one with national or international reach. 
The Petitioner has not established membership in an association in the field which requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines 
or fields. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted 18 articles published either in print or online between 2011 and 2018. The 
Director concluded that these articles do not meet the regulatory requirements for four reasons: 
• Some of the articles mention the Petitioner but are not about him and his work; 
• The publications are not professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
• The material appeared online rather than in print; and 
• The submission included "improperly translated documents." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it is "unsupported, arbitrary and unwarranted" to compare online 
news articles to user-edited sites such as Wikipedia. As noted above, the regulations do not give 
preference to printed material over online sources. Many respected publications have an online presence, 
and many print publications do not count as major trade publications or other major media. 
Notwithstanding the issue of online publications, the submitted articles are deficient for various reasons. 
For example, several articles have no credited author as required. Also, the Director was correct that a 
number of articles are not about the Petitioner. A Broadway World article from 2017 discusses tho 
I I The 749-word article ment10ns 
the Petitioner only once, identifying him as one of two concertmasters who will "co-present a lecture on 
the role of the concertmaster." This single mention does not mean that the article is about the Petitioner 
as required. 
But the overarching issue with all the articles is that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that 
the publications are professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner only 
submitted the articles themselves (with translations where necessary), which cannot suffice to show that 
any of the source publications meet the regulatory requirements. 
5 
Without evidence that the publications are professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner initially cited his participation in various juries and competitions. The Director found the 
Petitioner's evidence deficient for various reasons. On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute all of the 
Director's findings under this criterion, but contends that he performed qualifying judging work for a 
competition and through his duties as concertmaster. 
The Petitioner asserts that "the Director's denial ignored the [Petitioner's] participation as a juror for the 
10th I ts, also known as the Chinesd I Award for Music, Violin Competition, 
one of four nationally important art awards." The record documents the Petitioner's participation as a 
judge, which is sufficient to meet the requirements of the criterion. The significance of the judging 
activity would be a matter for discussion in the final merits determination, had the case proceeded that 
far. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed to have made a number of contributions through exchange programs, 
educational efforts, and collaborations with other musicians. In response to the request for evidence, he 
added more performances and educational efforts, plus a recording contract between the D and 
.__ ______ ~ ___ ....,I. In the denial notice, the Director found that the Petitioner had not 
established the major significance of any specific contributions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not revisit most of the previous specific claims. Instead, the Petitioner 
states: 
The Director's denial failed to take into account that [the Petitioner], as Concert Master 
First Violinist, will be leading th0to elevate and alter classical music to a whole new 
international level in combining Chinese and European classical music. This endeavor is 
an original artistic contribution of major significance in the world of classical music. 
Additionally, guidin~ in an effort to attract audiences world-wide is significant. 
Toward this goal, l_J andb , I [sic] have entered into a 
groundbreaking venture t9 have record for world-wide distribution. This is the first 
global record deal for a Chinese Orchestra ever. ... 
[The Petitioner] will be the very first Concert master to lead~in such a venture. The 
blending of Chinese and European classical music will be the first major significant 
venture ever taken. 
G 
Published material in the record documents the contract betweenOand thee=], and confirms that it is 
the "first global label deal for a Chinese orchestra." However, this coverage does not mention the 
Petitioner, either by name or by his title as concertmaster. Instpad.. the articles discuss the D's 
conducl°r (lho, with other orchestras, has previously recorded forLJ. The record does not establish 
that the s record deal witlC] is an original contribution by, or attributable to, the Petitioner, or that 
the Petitioner is individually a party to the contract. Furthermore, the record does not show that the 
Petitioner, rather than the conductor, is responsible for the creative direction of the orchestra. 
As shown above, the Petitioner refers to the impact of the recording contract in the future tense. It does 
not appear thaQhad issued anyD recordings at the time of filing. Therefore, whatever expectations 
the Petitioner may have regarding the recording contract, it is premature to attribute major significance to 
recordings that have not yet been issued, and possibly not yet recorded. 
Furthermore, the anticipated contributions are contingent on the Petitioner's continued involvement with 
an orchestra inl I which presumably would end if the Petitioner were to succeed in his intention 
to emigrate from China. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner submitted information about the role of the concertmaster in a symphony orchestra, and 
about concerts and festivals in which he performed. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied this criterion, because "the conductor, directors, executives, and so on" outrank the 
concertmaster, and because concerts and festivals are not organizations or establishments. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director understated the Petitioner's role and responsibilities. 
An individual need not be the single highest-ranking member of an organization to play a leading or, 
especially, critical role. The record sufficiently establishes that concertmasters in general, and the 
Petitioner in particular, influence the sound of a given orchestra, particularly the string section. Such a 
role is more limited and technical than that of the conductor or musical director, but it is critical 
nevertheless. (One must actually perform these functions, rather than simply hold the title of 
concertmaster, but this is not an issue in this case.) 
The Director correctly determined that individual performances and events are not, in themselves, 
~nizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation, but the record supports a finding that the 
L_J has a distinguished reputation. Materials in the record credit tht;LJ' s current conductor, rather 
than its concertmaster, with raising the organization's profile in recent years, but the regulations do not 
require the Petitioner to be personally responsible for an organization's reputation. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he has performed in a critical role with an organization with 
a distinguished reputation. 
7 
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. 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 has had the opportunity to perform with prestigious institutions and prominent musicians, 
but the record does not show that the Petitioner himself has risen to that same level of recognition, and 
the regulations do not provide for acclaim by association. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8