dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

MATTER OF J-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 17, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
( 
The Petitioner, a violinist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner Sl!bmits a brief, stating that she 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 ofthe 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of J- W-
(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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the 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 a( 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawath e, 25 ·I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a student at seeking a master's degree in stringed 
instruments. As 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) based 
on her third place finish at the 2015 and her 
award for excellence at the 2007 In addition, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) based on her participation at 
the 2013 The Petitioner has 
also demonstrated that her performances meet the criterion for display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). For instance, the Petitioner has appeared on stage as a 
'-' 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of J- W-
·member of the orchestra for the and the 
Accordingly, she has met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, making her one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. In a final merits determination, we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh 
the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner attended the and the 
for in China. The Petitioner was then admitted 
into the United States to study at the bachelor's degree 
program for violin performance and is currently seeking a master's degree in stringed instruments at 
As discussed further below, the Petitioner's personal 
achievements mainly surround her student activities and studies rather than indicating a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
The awards claimed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) do not indicate national or international acclaim 
for the Petitioner, nor establish a high level of recognition for her work. Several of the awards in the 
record are student awards. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field 
of endeavor. As such, academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation fall 
short of demonstrating the required acclaim. For example, the, Petitioner offered several 
"professional excellence prizes" for her successful semester completions at the 
In addition, the Petitioner supplemented the record with numerous awards 
received at youth and student c~mpetitions. For instance, the Petitioner received first place in the 
division at the and third place at the 
held by the Further, the record 
indicates that the Petitioner won the however 
this contest was "open to undergraduate and graduate students." The Petitioner competed against 
other students rather than against nationally or internationally recognized violinists. Awards won in 
competitions that were limited by student status do not indicate that the Petitioner "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Similarly, although the Petitioner placed third at the 
the eligibility requirements restrict the applicants to non-professionals and ages 18-28. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-W-
While not a student award, these restrictions indicate she did not compete against professional and 
renowned musical artists. Moreover, wpile the Petitioner received a 2007 
an award that was newly created, she did not show the level of competition reflecting that 
she has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner documented her 
membership with the and The record 
reflects that membership in each of these organizations requires a candidate to agree to the 
association's articles, receive two recommendation letters from members, and attain a certain level 
of achievement such as winning a music competition. The Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate 
that the membership requirements are tantamount to outstanding achievements, so as to reflect that 
"her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , the Petitioner established her 
one-time participation as a judge for the 
Specifically, the Petitioner evaluated 97 students to determine whether they passed 
examinations. An evaluation of the significance of the Petitioner's judging experience is acceptable 
under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. Without evidence that sets the 
Petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has served as a judge of acclaimed 
violinists or of a national or international competition rather than aspiring students or amateurs, the 
record does not demonstrate that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
· Although the Petitioner did not meet the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), she provided recommendation letters as evidence of her eligibility under that 
criterion. The letters discuss the Petitioner's skills as a violinist but do not identify original 
contributions of major significance in the field.' For instance, conductor and 
winner, indicated that t)1e Petitioner "has cleverly use[ d] eye contact, facial 
expression, and body movement to better her communication during performance and rehearsals." 
did not explain how the Petitioner 's techniques are considered original and of major 
significance. Similarly, Concertmaster of the 
stated that the Petitioner's sight-reading ability is "rare and very desirable." 
however, did not shqw that this ability constitutes a contribution to the field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence satisfying the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) . 
As it is expected that a violinist, such as the Petitioner, would perform in a musical setting at 
concerts and recitals, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of her work is reflective of 
acclaim consistent with this highly restrictive classification. Although the Petitioner's documentary 
evidence reflects a few of her performances at prestigious venues, such as and 
·1 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-W-
she participated at those events as an orchestral memb~r with 
and Moreover, the majority of her concerts took place at 
her academic institutions. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that her performances, for 
instance, garnered attention in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Further, the petitioner did not demonstrate that her concerts brought critical acclaim, drew record 
crowds, or raised attendance. The record does not indicate that the Petitioner received top billing or 
was otherwise personally featured at the venues. Without evidence distinguishing the Petitioner's 
concerts and performances from others in her field, she has not shown that she has risen to the very 
top of the field. 
With regard to the Petitioner's performances in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the appeal brief mentions her leading 
role as concertmaster with the and While 
a concertmaster serves as first violinist and assistant conductor to the orchestra, the Petitioner has not 
established that holding this role for ensembles composed of students is indicative that she is one of 
"that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." The 
submitted evidence for the Petitioner's roles and organizations does not substantiate her sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Finally, although not mentioned on appeal, the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the 
commercial successes criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) based on her collaboration on a 
video compact disc (VCD) entitled, 
The record indicates that the Petitioner provided musical numbers to 
the VCD. The Petitioner, however, did not establish that the VCD garnered critical acclaim or 
favorable press reviews or otherwise drew a significant level of sales in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she 
maintained high box office receipts showing her recognition 
in the field. 
'In summary, the Petitioner's achievements in the aggregate confirm that she is a talented violinist. 
She has performed in front of audiences and gained the respect of her educators, students, and other 
musicians, who believe she is capable of contributing to the U.S. music industry. Her achievements 
at this stage of her career, however, do not demonstrate that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim or that she is already one of the small percentage at the very top of her field of 
endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that she has 
distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. She, therefore, 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. ' 
5 
Matter of J- W-
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-W-, ID# 12090 (AAO Oct. 17, 2016)