dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-W-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 9, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a classical viola musician, 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 )(1 )(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 initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides new evidence, as well as previously submitted 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 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 E-W-L-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top ofthe 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). 
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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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 201 0). 
II. ANAL YSJS 
The Petitioner is a classical viola musician employed as a faculty violist for the 
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 ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets three criteria: memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and leading or critical roles 
under § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) .1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude it does 
not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the criteria pertaining to awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
and published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), she does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the record 
support a determination that she meets them. Accordingly, we will not further address these criteria in our decision. In 
addition, although the Petitioner does not contest the Director's decision relating to the artistic display criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), we find, as discussed later in this decision, that the record includes sufficient documentation 
to establish that she satisfies it. 
2 
.
Matter of E-W-L-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements ql their members . as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that she meets this criterion based on her membership with 
As evidence of her membership, she provided a letter from secretary for 
the local chapter of congratulating the Petitioner for being '·nominated'' and indicating he 
"sincerely hope[s] that [she] will accept this invitation. " As the regulation at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "the alien's membership in associations ,'· the Petitioner's submission of 
documentary evidence inviting or encouraging her to become a member is insufficient to 
demonstrate that she is a member. 
Even if the Petitioner demonstrated actual membership, the issue for this criterion is not the 
reputation or standing of the association but whether outstanding achievements , as judged by 
recognized national or international experts , are required for membership. The Petitioner submits a 
letter from president of the local chapter for which was written tor another 
member who had applied for extraordinary ability classification. 2 states that 
"[m]embership in the is based on outstanding achievements in the field of music as judged by 
the esteemed experts on the Faculty Committee alone." Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Feclin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava. 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); A>vyr Associates. Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y .). Although discusses why this individual 
was granted membership , he did not show the requires outstanding achievements as an 
essential condition for membership. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered screenshots from website and copies of constitution 
and by-laws showing that membership into is open to junior, senior, and graduate students 
majoring in music based on their grade point average or class rank, as well as to music faculty 
members. Such requirements, however, do not represent a level consistent with outstanding 
achievements. The national constitution states under the membership section that a junior or 
graduating senior is eligible if the faculty committee considers the student to be "outstanding in 
scholarly achievement and musicianship,' ' provided the student has the required grade point average. 
However , the national constitution does not define these criteria or explain in any detail how the 
faculty committee will determine if a student is outstanding in scholarly achievement and 
musicianship. 
Further, the constitution states that the faculty committee will make membership nominations. The 
committee consists of music faculty who are members of The Petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate that the committee is comprised of recognized national or international experts. As 
2 The record does not indicate whether the noted individual was approved for such classification . Regardless , we note 
we are not bound by decisions of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855 , 2000 WL 282785 , at *2 (E. D. La. 2000) . 
3 
.
Matter of E-W-L-
stated in the letter mentioned above by the membership decisions are made by the 
faculty committee who are members who are selected within the local chapter. 
claims that each individual of the faculty committee has "already established her/himself as an 
expert in the field of music through the rigorous nomination and election process themselves." 
However, he does not provide a basis for stating that the members of the faculty committee are 
nationally or internationally recognized, outside of being members themselves in For these 
reasons, the Petitioner does 
not meet this criterion . 
Evidence of the alien's participation , either individually or on a panel. as ajudxe ofthe work of' 
others in the same or an alliedfield (?lspec(jication for which classi(ica/ion is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner argued that she met this 
criterion by serving as a judge for incoming student auditions for the at 
A letter from the Director of at 
indicated that the Petitioner evaluated incoming student 
auditions for the string program in February 2016. The author also stated that she served in the 
adjudication panel because of her expertise in viola and as a faculty member. In the Director 's 
decision, he stated that the evidence related to events occurring, over a year after the current petition 
was filed, and therefore does not show eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that · wrote about the last time she was involved in the 
adjudication panel, but that she also served on the panel before filing the petition. 
submits an updated letter to "clarify my first confirmation letter" and states that the Petitioner was 
"hired as a faculty violist at the beginning of 2014 , and as the faculty violist she was charged with 
auditioning the candidates for the at the . 
. . Thus, 
she served on the adjudication panel along with the faculty cellist and faculty violinist in February of 
2014 and 2015." In the updated letter, the author does not explain the inconsistency in the noted 
dates nor does he indicate, as the Petitioner asserts, that the previous letter only reflected the most 
recent date she participated in a panel. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record 
with independent , objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of 1-fo. 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BJA 1988). Here , the Petitioner did not provide any corroborating evidence 
establishing that she served on a panel prior to filing the petition to support the new letter. 
Moreover , the letters from did not explain the panel's adjudication process , or the 
Petitioner's duties or responsibilities in the process, to demonstrate that she served as a judge of the 
work of others consistent with the plain language of the criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[ e ]vidence 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." Serving as an instructor in a classroom setting and 
evaluating students in an informal capacity as part of one's job duties does not equate to 
participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a judge'' implies a formal 
designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually , as specified by the regulatory 
4 
.
Matter of E-W-L-
criterion. Without supporting evidence showing that she participated as a judge prior to filing the 
petition, 
the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's "vork in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(vii). 
The record contains playbills and other evidence of the Petitioner 's performances with several 
orchestras and symphonies, such as the the 
and the Accordingly , we find the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she meets this criterion based on her work with 
the and 
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 record contains a letter from president and owner of who stated that the 
Petitioner "performed in a leading role for our organization on many occasions. 
explained that his organization writes and records compositions for cinema . He further stated that 
she has performed as the sole violist, section leader, and workshop musician , and that she has 
recorded compositions used in high profile films. however , did not demonstrate how the 
Petitioner's contributions and accomplishments served as a leading role to overall. In addition , 
did not provide information regarding the organizational hierarchy to understand the role 
of the Petitioner within the company, and show how her role compared to the other positions within 
such as roles as president and owner, to demonstrate that it is a leading one. 
also claimed that the Petitioner is "critical to the success of our organization and has held 
a critical position as a soloist, section leader, and workshop musician." He did not, however, explain 
how the Petitioner influenced overall reputation or status, and did not show how she was 
responsible for the success of the organization. For example , the letter does not indicate how often 
she worked in these positions or how her work contributed to the success or influenced the standing 
of in the field. Accordingly, he did not provide sufficient information to meet this criterion. 
Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41: Avyr Associates. Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
As noted above , the Petitioner also claimed that she 
served in a leading and critical role based on her 
position as a principal violist, section leader, and soloist for and The record 
contains several playbills for performances that list the Petitioner as a viola player but they do not 
indicate she is a principal or serves in a leading or critical role for She also submitted a 
5 
.
Matter of E-W-L-
playbill for one performance with the where she is listed as a co-principal. Although the 
Petitioner performed at these events, during most of them she was not a principal or in a leading role. 
She did not demonstrate that her one-time performance as a co-principal constitutes a leading or 
critical role for The Petitioner, for example, did not show how her role compared to the 
other positions within or to demonstrate that it is leading or how her role led to the 
success or standing ofthese orchestras to establish that it is critical. 
In addition, the regulation requires that the Petitioner has performed for organizations or 
establishments "that have a distinguished reputation." The Petitioner presented a letter from the 
owner of stating it is one of the "most successful composition groups in and 
' and provided a list of past projects. However, the Petitioner did not provide any 
corroborating evidence from other sources to corroborate this statement or otherwise show 
distinguished reputation. As it pertains to and the Petitioner provided screenshots 
from the websites for and Although the documentation provides insight on what 
these two companies do, it does not indicate that or have eminent reputations, such 
as by garnering major awards or receiving favorable media coverage. For the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 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 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. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualities for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-W-L-, ID# 762244 (AAO Nov. 9, 2017)