dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 26, 2024 In Re: 32289656 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a singer, 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 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 under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a pet1t10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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). 
IT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner graduated from the ______ of Music in 2012, and began releasing albums 
in 2013. Since 2017, the Petitioner has spent much of his time in the United States as an F-1 
nonimmigrant student, studying at the I land teaching at a music school inl I 
California in optional practical training permitted by his F-1 status. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 claimed to have satisfied five of these 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 individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met any of the claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets the four criteria relating to prizes, memberships, published material, 
and judging. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding contributions, and 
therefore we consider him to have waived appeal on that issue. 1 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criteria 
claimed. We will discuss the criteria below. 
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 ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner initially submitted photographs of performances and publicity events, web addresses for 
articles, and uncertified translations of several articles. 
1 See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen .. 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-2731201 1, 2011 WL 4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner submitted "documents ... that are 
not translated properly and/or do not come from legitimate media." The Director stated: 
Be advised that we do not view information disseminated through 21st Century Economic 
Report (2lshijijingjibaodao), admaimai.com, Baidu, Baike, China.com, ChinaDaily.com, 
Dianping, FengHuang (ifeng.com), NetEase (163.com), Sina, Sohu, Tencent (QQ.com), 
Toutiao, Xinhuanet, YouKu, and their like as published material, because they are web 
portals or distribution platforms open to the public through which anyone can self-publish 
information. Such evidence will not be considered or discussed. 
The Director also stated that, ifthe Petitioner chose to submit additional published materials, the Petitioner 
must establish the circulation of the media in which the materials appeared. 
In response, the Petitioner protested the Director's exclusion of material from the named websites. The 
Petitioner also submitted additional published material. The Petitioner did not submit the requested 
circulation information. 
In the denial notice, the Director repeated the assertion that evidence from certain websites would not be 
accepted. The Director also noted that some materials do not include the information required by the 
regulations, such as author attribution. The Director stated: "To qualify as major media, the publication 
should have significant national or international distribution with circulation ( online or in print) or 
viewership high compared with other statistics." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not justify the refusal to consider content from the 
listed websites. The Petitioner asserts that, while "some of the websites listed as excludable are small and 
maybe infamous websites that carry little probative value," others are "big national websites" which 
"carry probative value because ... it's impossible to buy spaces for personal promotion." 
In the case ofBaidu Baike, the submitted printouts include a disclaimer that reads: "Encyclopedia entries 
can be edited by everyone ... there is no official ... editor." There are no assurances about the reliability 
of the content from open, user-edited Internet sites. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 
2008). But we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not adequately explain the conclusion that 
the other named websites are all open, user-edited websites. 
Nevertheless, the burden is on the Petitioner to establish that the submitted published material meets 
applicable requirements. In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, 
major trade publication, or 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). 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
In this instance, the Petitioner submitted examples ofpublished material, but did not submit the necessary 
background information to establish that the published material appeared in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, even after the Director specifically requested that information. 
3 
The Petitioner states, on appeal, that some of the websites are "national website portals," but statements 
in a brief, motion, or Notice ofAppeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. 
Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). The Petitioner cannot meet his burden of proof simply 
by asserting that the published material appeared in major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits new printouts showing that an album that he released in 2023 is 
available on online streaming services. A Spotify artist page indicates that he has "224 monthly listeners." 
Shoutout LA and CanvasRebel published interviews with the Petitioner in late 2023 and early 2024. All 
of these materials date from after the petition's August 2022 filing date, and therefore they cannot 
establish that the Petitioner met all eligibility requirements as of the filing date as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). As such, these newly submitted documents are not material to the appeal, and we need not 
consider whether these new submissions are published materials about the Petitioner that appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Because the Petitioner has not submitted circulation data for the publications, the Petitioner has not 
established that the published material appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media as the regulatory language requires. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of certificates, some of them in English, others in Chinese with 
translations, and photographs of events and plaques. The Petitioner claimed to have received several 
more "regional, national and international awards" between 2008 and 2019. The Petitioner claimed that 
"many of these rankings are without an official award, certificate, etc." A printout from Baidu Baike lists 
several of the claimed awards. As noted above, Baidu Baike is a user-edited online encyclopedia that 
includes a disclaimer regarding the reliability of the information on the site. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for more information about the claimed awards, such as the criteria used 
to grant them and evidence of their national or international recognition. The Director advised that local 
media coverage is not sufficient to establish such recognition. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted printouts of identically worded articles from World Journal and 
Yahoo! News, indicating that the Petitioner placed fourth among five finalists in 
described as "the first summer singing competition that gathers music lovers from overseas Chinese 
students in the United States." 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish "the national or 
international significance of the awards or prizes in the field." Regarding the _____ 
competition, the Director stated that the Petitioner "submitted identical articles displayed on 
worldjournal.com and news.yahoo.com. However, as both sites are web portals, they have no probative 
value for this proceeding." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "Worldjournal is a reputable Chinese newspaper across North 
America available in all the major cities from Coast to Coast." The Petitioner also states that the Yahoo! 
4 
I 
News article was "not given sufficient weight." The Director is correct that the Yahoo! News article shares 
identical wording with the World Journal article. The record does not indicate that the Yahoo! News 
article was the result of independent reporting, rather than an aggregation that republished the World 
Journal article. 
As noted above, the Petitioner's statements in the appeal brief are not evidence. More importantly, the 
submitted articles do not establish that the Petitioner received a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for finishing in fourth place in the I I competition. 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence that he received prizes and awards, but has not submitted the 
required evidence to establish their national or international recognition. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
met the requirements of the criterion. 
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). 
A translated certificate indicated that the Petitioner was appointed as a standing council member of the 
IMusic and Literature Association from July 2016 to July 2021. An English-language printout 
from the user-edited online encyclopedia Baidu Baike called the association "a voluntary group of 
accomplished music literature workers inl I 
In the RFE, the Director stated that "being appointed to a council is not a membership in an association. 
Additionally, the appointment was expired at the time of filing." The Director requested "evidence of 
continued membership, information to establish that the individuals who review prospective members' 
applications are recognized as national or international experts in their disciplines or fields and the section 
of the association's constitution or bylaws that discusses the qualifications required by the review panel 
of the association." 
In response, the Petitioner stated that he allowed his council membership to lapse because "maintaining 
a membership in China would be impractical." The Petitioner asserted that he has applied to renew his 
membership "and is waiting for a certain card to arrive." The Petitioner also submitted evidence that he 
became a member of the Music Teachers Association of California in March 2023, several months after 
the petition's August 2022 filing date. The Petitioner did not submit evidence of the membership 
requirements of either association. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not submitted the required evidence to 
show the associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. The Director also repeated the observation that the Petitioner's council 
appointment had lapsed, and the assertion that "being appointed to a council is not a membership in an 
association." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the expiration of his membership in the I IMusic and 
Literature Association is irrelevant to his eligibility, because it is his admission to the association that 
established his status in the field. But the Petitioner has not submitted the required evidence to show that 
5 
the association possesses the membership requirements that the regulations demand. As discussed above, 
the Baidu Baike article in the record lacks weight because any user can change the contents of such an 
article. Even then, the reference to association members as "accomplished" is not sufficient to show that 
the association requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. The Baidu Baike article instead limits the organization's scope tol I 
The Petitioner has not established that he holds any memberships that meet the regulatory requirements. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for the criterion. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), pertaining to judging the work of others, cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve this issue. 2 
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 lesser 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 conclusion 
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. 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). Here, the Petitioner has not shown a degree of recognition of his work that 
indicates the required sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates 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) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner 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). The Petitioner has shown 
that he has released recordings, won prizes, and achieved some degree of media coverage, but he has 
not submitted the supporting evidence necessary to satisfy the regulatory criteria and establish that his 
recognition rises to the level of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6