dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-L-E-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jazz pianist, 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. § l 153(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding the Petitioner had satisfied two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he 
must meet at least three. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. - An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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. 
Matter of H-L-E-
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 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). Alternatively, 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, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a jazz pianist who has performed individually and with multiple ensembles. As the 
Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the 
Petitioner had met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria; published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills five criteria. Upon review of all of the evidence, 
we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
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 contends that his receipt of the third prize in the 2016 I I competition as a member 
of thel I and second prize at the 2004 I I national piano competition 
meets this criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 1 In regard to his third 
prize award in the I I competition, the Petitioner provided a press release regarding his 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
Matter of H-L-E-
ensemble's receipt of the 2016 award, three articles from the Detroit Free Press, Houston Press, and 
National Public Radio' sl I, and a letter from the University of1 !School of Music 
dean discussing the competition. Although the Petitioner provided three articleyeferrinf to the grand 
prize, he did not submit documentation to establish that a third place prize at the Competition 
is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 2 
Concerning the second prize at the 2004 .__ ______ _.national piano competition, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from the artistic and musical director for the 2004 competition and a picture of a 
trophy labeled "II Festival I I 2 Lugar N acional." While the letter from I I 
discusses the Petitioner's receipt of the award and the competition's prestige, the record does not 
establish that his 2004 second prize award received national or international recognition for excellence 
in the field. For example, the record does not contain evidence that the second place prize garnered 
media attention or is otherwise nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
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 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
We note that the Director's decision states without explanation that the Petitioner provided sufficient 
documentation to satisfy this criterion. As explained below, upon de nova review of the record, we 
find the Petitioner has not provided published material about him in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, which included the title, date, and author. 3 Therefore, he has not 
satisfied its requirements. 
The Petitioner provided articles and album reviews from various publications, such as Epoch Times 
and Downbeat. Thou h the article and 
album review are about the 
Petitioner, the evidence does not demonstrate the publications qualify as major media. The Petitioner 
offered printouts from Similar Web regarding the publications' rankings and "traffic overview." 
Similar Web reflects that the websites range from a global ranking of 8,052 to 900,667; a country 
ranking of 251 to 308,276; and total visits of 13,090,000 to 64,430. The Petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate the significance of the Internet rankings and viewing statistics or explain how such 
information reflects status as major media. 
While the articles and album reviews from London Jazz News, Jazz Trail, Jazz Weekly, Jay Harvey 
Upstage, The Phillipian, and Jazz da Gama are about the Petitioner, the record does not include 
evidence regarding the qualifying nature of the publications. Further, the Latin Beat Magazine article, 
"Annual Panama Jazz Fest Puts Accent on Education," was not specifically about the Petitioner. 
Rather, it was about a jazz festival in which he participated, only briefly mentioning him as one of the 
2 We note that thel I competition only began in 2016 and has since been terminated. Seel !chamber Music 
Competition, http://! , ~du/index.html#about (last accessed on July 30, 2019, and incorporated into the record). 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
3 
Matter of H-L-E-
musicians. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). In addition, the Jazz Chill article does not 
include the author of the material, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence demonstrating it is a qualifying publication. 4 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills 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 record contains evidence showing that the Petitioner participated as a judge of musicians at jazz 
festivals. Therefore, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies this criterion. 
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 Petitioner submitted evidence showing that he performed before audiences at concerts and other 
music events. As such, the Petitioner has established that he fulfills the requirements of 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). 
The Petitioner contends that he "has played a leading and critical role" with the ._I ____ ___. 
and I I As it relates to a leading role, the .__ _____________ _, 
evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, 
can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 5 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome 
of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 6 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim that he performed a critical role for theDfrom 2017 to present as 
the "only faculty member responsible for the I I Jazz Ensemble," he refers to letters from 
various individuals including I I Jazz Department faculty member, andl I 
a jazz pianist anLJ educator. 7 I I states that the Petitioner's "abilities as a jazz pianist are 
unmatched within our industry," "his abilities as a composer and jazz educator are also unrivaled," 
and he "serves in a critical role as a faculty member for the success of the I I Jazz Department." 
I I indicates that the Petitioner "is a remarkable jazz pianist" and is "without question one of 
the finest jazz pianists" he has worked with. While the authors speak positively of the Petitioner's 
4 Id. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
6 Id. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter of H-L-E-
talents as an educator and musician, they lack detailed and probative information about the Petitioner's 
role and its impact on the organization to determine that it was critical. 8 
The Petitioner also contends that his experience as a founding member, the only pianist, and one of 
two South American musicians constitutes a critical role for thd I The record contains 
documentation confirmin~ Is third prize award in the 2016 I I competition and his 
role as its only pianist. In addition, the Petitioner provided a concert program regarding the ensemble's 
performance atl ~ that discusses his contributions as the group's Brazilian pianist. 
Similarly, the Petitioner asserts that he played a critical and leadin& role as the only pianist with the 
.__ ______ -,-1----e_n_se_m_b--,le. He submitted documentation reflectingl I' invitation 
to perform at the.__ __ ___.Festival and several articles that discuss the event and its artici ants. For 
example, the San Diego Tribune article s 
I t noted~-------~ with the Petitioner as the ensemble's pianist, will 
perform at the festival. 
While the Petitioner has established that he played a critical role in the I land theD 
I l the record does not contain supporting documentation to show that the groups have a 
distinguished reputation, marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 9 Without sufficient 
corroborative documentation, the Petitioner has not established that the ensembles enjoy distinguished 
reputations, as required by the regulation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has failed to submit the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. 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. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for 
the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-L-E-, ID# 3680190 (AAO Aug.7, 2019) 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11. 
5