dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-Z-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 11,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a saxophonist and a yoga and meditation instructor, 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, stating that she meets at least 
three criteria. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 90ntinue work in the area of 
extraord~nary 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 
.
Matter of S-Z-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitione~ can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence 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 detennination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentc;tge 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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 saxophonist who has performed in jazz clubs in the United States and around the 
world and has taught yoga and meditation classes for musicians for the ' at 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 
has received a major , internationally recognized award
, she 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 satisfied the display 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). , 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the membership criterion under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , leading or critical role under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) .1 We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
.J 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classtfication 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). 
1 While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for awards under 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3)(i) , published material under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3){iii), and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , she indicates in her brief that she does not wish 
to appeal the determinations . for these criteria , and the record does not support a finding that she meets them . 
2 
.
Matter ofS-Z-
The Petitioner contends that her associations with the 
and meet this criterion. 
Regarding it is an academic institution where the Petitioner was enrolled as a student rather 
than an association in which the Petitioner was a member. The Petitioner provided letters from 
director of student wellness and health promotion at and 
president of including an updated letter from on appeal. Although they discuss 
the Petitioner's personal and academic accomplishments and praise her involvement in 
wellness program while attending the school, they do not indicate that she acquired "membership" 
with based on her outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. 
As it pertains to the Petitioner submitted her membership card and a letter from 
senior director of operations, who stated that is a performing rights organization that 
serves to compensate its songwriters and publishers for havipg their music performed in public. In 
addition, the Petitioner presented screenshots from website reflecting that it is "primarily 
interested in working with 
professional writers, or those who are pursuing their career 
professionally." The Petitioner, however, has not established that the organization requues 
outstanding achievements of its members, nor has she demonstrated that membership with ts 
judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Regarding the Petitioner presented a letter from its owner, who stated that 
he offered to employ her to play with her band once a week at his club. The Petitioner has not 
shown that she is a member of rather that she has been employed by Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not established that requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she satisfies this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign{ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner indicates that her 
recommendations letters attest to her original contributions of major 
significance. 2 For instance, professor of jazz studies at discussed 
the Petitioner's "rare combination of artistic genius" and "unique blend of eastern passive 
meditation." Further, president of 
referenced the Petitioner's "rare" talent and indicated that she "recognized [the Petitioner's] artistic 
contribution to the field of music as a unique gift that should be cherished in the US," and she sees 
the Petitioner's "contribution in being a beacon of strength, inner balance and beauty for the 
environment of musicians in the US." Neither nor describes how the 
Petitioner's skills and talents have impacted the field beyond their own personal experiences and 
encounters with her. Moreover, having a diverse or unique skill set is not in-and-of-itself a 
2 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
.
Matter of S-Z-
contribution of major significance, unless a petitiOner shows that she has used those skills to 
influence the field; in this case, the Petitioner has not made such a showing. 
In addition, a psychotherapist in expressive therapy at the 
indicated that the Petitioner has been assisting him a study for the therapy of patients 
suffering mental illnesses, and she "has already proven to be able to make a significant contribution 
to this specific field of expertise." however, does not identify what contributions the 
Petitioner has made and how they are of major significance in the field. Instead, stated 
that he is "expecting much improvements [sic] in this field by the contributions and the forward 
thinking methods that [the Petitioner] has shared with me," and that he predicts that the Petitioner's 
"potential contribution in the future to be not only in direct work with individual patients but also in 
research and team-work that is so necessary at this stage of this growing field of knowledge." A 
petitioner cannot establish eligibility under this criterion based on the expectation of future 
significance. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. -8 C.F.R. · 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Given the descriptions in terms of future applicability and determinations that may 
occur at a later date, the actual impact on the field has yet to be determined. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS' ) 
conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the 
field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The Petitioner also states that she "has CDs (20 professional recordings) released with reputable 
record labels," "has performed at more than public concerts," and "has been featured alongside 
countless Grammy winners." She did not explain or demonstrate, however, how her recordings, 
concerts, or performances have impacted or influenced the field in a significant manner. See 
Visinscaia , 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). In sum, the Petitioner 
has not met her burden of showing that she has made original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
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 that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion as a musician. The record reflects 
that the Petitioner has displayed her work on stage at artistic events. For example, the Petitioner was 
4 
. .
Matter of S-Z-
a featured saxophone soloist at in Massachusetts, as part of ' 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
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). 
Although the Director found that has a distinguished reputation, he determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role for the institution. On 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role for as a jazz 
teacher "using yoga and other meditation methods to create a mindful, accepting environment in 
which students can feel free creatively and emotionally." In support of her claim, the 
Petitioner references the most recent letter from who indicates that she "has positively 
impacted our college by focusing her time in developing new methods and concepts intending to 
improve the lives of the students." Further, states that he has "received wide 
acknowledgement of her contribution to the community at large," and "[h ]er work has 
enhanced both I students and the community's mental and physical wellbeing." In addition, 
offered that the Petitioner's classes have grown and her sessions have been "well­
received" and "have gotten high regards." 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. The 
Petitioner's recommendation letters do not demonstrate how teaching yoga classes, as well as 
developing programs for the ' " represents a leadership role for the college, nor 
does the record include evidence indicating where her role fits in the hierarchy of the organization. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her role was critical, such as by providing 
documentation indicating that she was responsible for the success or standing of Although 
the Petitioner's recommendation letters indicate that her classes have been "well-received," she did 
not show, for instance, that overall student enrollment increased at due to her teaching and 
program development. For these 
reasons, we concur with the Director's finding that the Petitioner 
does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign?ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on her earnings as a yoga instructor. The 
Petitioner references the letter from who indicated that she was paid $50 per 
.meditation 
class and $75 per yoga class, which is supported by invoices and paychecks, for teaching 
at In addition, the Petitioner presented a letter from 
executive director for who stated that the Petitioner has 
been offered to teach yoga for the Shira Yoga class series at at a rate of$150 per 
hour. however, did not provide specific information, such as how many hours per 
week the Petitioner will instruct or how long the class series will last. The record also contains 
yearly salaries of yoga instructors, such as screenshots from the U.S. Department of Labor and 
5 
.
Matter of S-Z-
widely ranging from $17,000 to $108,000. The Petitioner, however, has not provided 
evidence of her cumulative annual wages to provide a basis for comparison against the data. 
Moreover, she has not sufficiently shown how the submitted yearly and hourly wage data 
demonstrates that her per class rate at or class series rate at represents significantly high 
remuneration for services compared to others in her field. . Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
establish that she fulfills this criterion. 
B. Summary 
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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a 
1
classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
users from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g. , Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice , 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the 
office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 
282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fS-Z-, ID# 374266 (AAO July 11 , 2017) 
6