dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25675081 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 29, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a bassoonist in the music field, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met the following categories: 
• (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 in the same or allied field 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance 
• (vii), Display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments 
The Director concluded the Petitioner met the evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work of others 
in the same or allied field but determined she had not satisfied the remaining categories listed above. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she met three evidentiary criteria: published material about 
the individual in professional or major media; display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; and holding a leading role for a distinguished organization. On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not pursue her initial claims that she meets the criteria relating to lesser awards, membership in 
associations, and, original contributions, nor does she contest the Director's conclusions regarding 
these issues. We therefore consider those issues abandoned. 1 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has 
satisfied the judging criteria, but she also satisfies one additional category of evidence by her display 
of her work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner has therefore satisfied two 
criteria and must satisfy one more to prevail. As discussed below, we conclude she has not. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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. 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&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-27312011, 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 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the published material must be about the Petitioner and related to her specific 
work in the field for which classification is sought; it must include the title, date, and author of the 
material and any necessary translation; and the publication must qualify as a professional publication, 
major trade publication, or major media publication. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). With the petition, 
the Petitioner submitted articles from different publications that specifically discussed the Petitioner 
and her work as a bassoonist in the music industry. Each article included the title, date, and author 
and the necessary translation. The Petitioner also provided information regarding each publication to 
include the relevance of the publication, the intended audience, and circulation. 
In the Director's decision, he reviewed the articles submitted and found the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence to establish the cited sources qualified as professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. 
The Petitioner contends she satisfies this criterion since she was featured in articles published in Qilu 
Evening News; Morning Post; Xiaoxiang Morning Herald; Jinan Times; New Weekly; and Music 
Weekly. The Petitioner provided printouts from various websites containing information about these 
publications. However, the accuracy of the information found on these websites is not clear. 
The Petitioner provided circulation data for each publication. The two publications with the highest 
circulation are Qilu Evening News with an average circulation of 1.35 million copies, and Morning 
Post with an average daily circulation of 680,000. The Petitioner did not provide the circulation data 
of these publications to compare with the circulation statistics of other Chinese newspapers and 
consequently failed to establish that these publications constitute major media. The record does not 
contextualize the provided circulation statistics, indicate their significance, or otherwise elaborate on 
how that information could establish that the publications are the type of major media contemplated 
by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addition, while the Qilu Evening News and Morning Post appear to have the highest circulation of 
the listed publications, it is not clear whether they are merely regional media for certain areas of China. 
The documentation stated that Qilu Evening News is distributed across 17 cities in China, and 
according to the World Association ofN ewspapers, ranks number 3 7 in circulations among worldwide 
newspapers. In addition, the documentation indicated Morning Post is "one of China's top 
metropolitan newspapers and one of the Top 100 dailies in the world." But the petitioner still did not 
provide sufficient information to establish that these publications have national rather than regional 
reaches within China. Publications with only a regional reach are not considered major media, and 
the Petitioner has not established that either publication is a professional or major trade publication, 
as also permitted by the regulation. 
After review of the totality of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
3 
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). 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not meet the criterion relating to the display of her work at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The regulation requires that the work 
displayed be a given petitioner's own work product and that the venues at which the work was 
displayed be artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). In support of this criterion, 
the Petitioner provided evidence of having played in several concerts and musical events, and she 
provided details regarding the venues at which she performed as a bassoonist. We conclude that these 
musical performances should be considered "artistic exhibitions or showcases" intended to showcase 
the Petitioner's musical talent as a bassoonist, and that she therefore satisfies the plain language of this 
criterion. Accordingly, we hereby withdraw the Director's determination that the criterion was not 
met. 
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). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role was for an organization or establishment 
(or a division or department of an organization or establishment) with a distinguished reputation. A 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help establish whether a role is 
or was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In addition, this criterion requires that the organization or 
establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. USCIS policy reflects that 
organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence." See generally id. (citing to the definition of distinguished, 
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide additional evidence to overcome the Director's decision 
and instead provides documentation previous! submitted. The Petitioner contends she erformed in 
a leadin role as a rinci al bassoonist in the 
According to the submitted job duties, it 
appears the Petitioner led and oversaw the bassoon section for the symphonies. Although the 
Petitioner held a leading role for the bassoon section, she did not provide sufficient documentation to 
establish she played a leading role in an organization. For example, the documentation does not 
establish that she performed a leading role for the symphonies as a whole, such as by showing she 
influenced its overall reputation or status, or that she was responsible for the organization's success. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate that her role as a principal bassoonist for 
one of the symphony's many sections constitutes a leading role for the overall organization. 
Even if the Petitioner had contended her role was a leading role in a division of the organization, which 
she did not do, we would observe that she had not provided sufficient documentation to establish that 
4 
the specific division she had led itself maintained a distinguished reputation rather than contributing 
to the distinguished reputation of the symphony as a whole. 
In summary, the evidence provided does not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner performed in a 
leading role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner 
provided job duties and explained that she led the bassoon section as a principal bassoonist but did not 
provide sufficient evidence that she led an organization. Merely repeating the language of the statute 
or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. V. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. At 17. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets 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 lesser criteria. We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on the 
issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 2 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded 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 those progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are 
"reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing 
Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing 
in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly 
accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not 
qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her 
work 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); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is 
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 unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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 record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6