dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 13.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a disc jockey (DJ) and music producer. seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(I)(A). 8 U.S.C. ~ 1153(b)(I)(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. as required. that the Petitioner met at least three of the I 0 initial evidence requirements. 
On appeal. the Petitioner submits additional evidence. asserting that he meets the necessary criteria 
and qualifies for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 111 the area of 
extraordinary 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 A-S-
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 l 0 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 detennination 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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0).
1 
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 ol 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
li. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner is a OJ and music producer. Because he has not indicated or established that he has 
received a major, internationally recognized award, to meet the initial evidence requirements. he 
must satisfy at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition. 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the requisite criteria. \Ve have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies at least three criteria. 2 
Documentation ol the alien 's membership in associations in the .field.for which classification 
is sought. which require outstanding achievements of their memhers. asjudged hy recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's memberships in the 
did not satisfy 
Director's finding regarding 
membership in and 
He submitted two letters from 
this criterion. On appeal , the Petitioner does not challenge the 
but provides additional evidence in support of his assertion that 
satisfies this criterion. 
who stated that 
represents national radios in Turkey. 
Vice President of 
stated that invited the Petitioner to join 
1 
This case discusses a tv..-o-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 detennination. ,)'ee 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 ). 
" We will discus s those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
.
Maller o/A-5i-
based on his "experience and reputation in the music industry," and that he currently is a member of 
supervisory and audit boards. 
According to its bylaws, "radio legal entities" that broadcast nationally may apply for membership 
and have one individual represent the entity. Thus. it appears that the only requirement for 
membership in is association with a qualifying radio legal entity. Although he submits 
evidence of his membership on supervisory and audit boards. there is no evidence that he 
was selected to serve on these boards based on his outstanding achievements. The Petitioner has not 
shown that the association requires outstanding achievements of its members. Moreover. the 
evidence does not indicate that member achievements are judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
The Petitioner submitted two letters from General Coordinator of 
confirming his membership. The Petitioner provided excerpts from website, which indicated 
that promotes the development of interactive advertising around the world. Based on this 
information, it does not appear that is an organization in the music field. Moreover, the 
Petitioner submitted no documentation, such as the organization's bylaws, demonstrating the manner 
for selecting members or that those who select members are recognized national or international 
experts. Although stated that selected the Petitioner to be a judicial member based on 
his reputation and achievements in the field. he also stated that "our bylaws do not provide specitic 
criteria for selecting judicial members.'' He thus has not shown that is an organization that 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not 
established that he satisfies this criterion. 
Published material ahoul the alien in pro{essional or major trade puhlicalions or 
other major media. relalinK to the alien's work in lhefieldfhr lrhich classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author o( the material. and 
any necessary franslation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains an article, which includes the title, date, and author, from 
that constitutes published material about the Petitioner relating to his DJ career. In addition, he 
provided evidence showing that the magazine qualifies as a major medium. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has established that he satisfies this criterion. and the Director's determination to the contrary is 
hereby withdrawn. 
Evidence (?f the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudRe o( 
the ',1'ork l?l others in the same or an aWed field of spec(fication fcJr 1vhich 
classification is souRhl. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating that he served on the jury panels for various music 
festivals, including the 
Therefore. he has satistied 
the plain language of this criterion. 
.
Matter ofA-S-
Evidence of the alien's original scient?fic. scholar(v. artislic. athletic. or business­
related contributions o.fmajor sign~ficance in the .field 
The Petitioner's claim to meet this criterion rests upon numerous testimonial letters 3 and evidence 
demonstrating that he was a scheduled performer at various music festivals. He submitted copies of 
various flyers, indicating that he was a performer at numerous music festivals, including 
and Nevertheless, the evidence submitted does not demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's performances at these festivals constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Further, the record does not document the impact of the Petitioner's \Vork 
on the field of music. 
The Petitioner submits numerous testimonial letters from other artists and colleagues in the music 
field praising his talent as a DJ and music producer. For example, a letter from . a 
concert and tour producer, stated that the Petitioner "has developed a signature eclectic mixing craft 
in deep house music," and claims that he has ''cemented his place" as a top OJ and producer. 
lead vocalist and guitarist for Turkish rock band stated that the Petitioner 
"masterfully blended techno beats" into the re-mix of one of its hit songs. President of 
attested to the Petitioner's popularity as a OJ and states that his radio program 
routinely draws thousands of listeners. Fellow OJ talked about the growing popularity 
of electronic and house music, and that the Petitioner is one of the best DJs currently in the genre. 
Talent and experience in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original artistic 
contributions of major significance in the music field. While he has earned the admiration of his 
references, the record does not demonstrate that he has made original artistic contributions of major 
significance in the field. For example, the Petitioner has not documented his influence on other 
electronic or house DJs, nor does it show that the genre has significantly changed as a result of his 
work. The Petitioner must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v): see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, at 134 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). The reference letters submitted by the Petitioner briefly discuss his muscial 
skills. but they do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies the plain language of this criterion. 
3 
It is not erroneous that a USCIS decision does n.ot cite from each and every letter in support of a petition. Noroo::i v. 
Napofjfano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 {S.D.N.Y. 2012) (dting Chen v. U.S. Dep'f o(Juslice, 471 F.3d 315,338 n. 17 (2d 
Cir.2006)). . 
4 
.
Matter of A-S-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner stated that he meets this criterion because he has served in leading roles for several 
major prominent media companies. He submitted a letter from President of 
stating that he gave the Petitioner his own radio show on with full autonomy to run it as he 
pleased. claimed that '·as one of the most popular shows based on audience listenership. 
[his] role is absolutely leading ... and critical to According to the documentation 
submitted, the Petitioner's radio show on runs from 00:00 to 01:00 on 
accounting for only one hour per week. While we acknowledge that the Petitioner is undoubtedly 
popular, the evidence does not demonstrate how his role as a DJ with a one-hour time slot 
differentiates him from the numerous other DJs employed by has not 
described the Petitioner's duties or his performance in such a manner that he can be said to have led 
the organization. Furthermore, the record does not document that the Petitioner·s role resulted in a 
significant impact for such as increased ratings and listenership. Absent additional 
evidence. the Petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or critical role for 
He also claimed that he is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of 
and submitted a letter from Chief Executive Officer, attesting to this role. 
The record, however, contains no evidence such as corporate documents or an organizational chart, 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner held the position of COO as claimed. Moreover, 
states that the Petitioner was responsible for leading a joint venture with 
the largest private radio broadcasting group in Russia, and that he launched their digital 
multimedia service. He also claims that the Petitioner designed and developed apps, websites, and 
other distribution channels. It appears that these claimed accomplishments as COO are not 
associated with his claimed area of expertise as set forth on the petition, which is as a DJ and music 
producer. 
Finally, aside from letter and screens hots of website, the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that possesses a distinguished reputation. In light of the above. the 
Petitioner has not submitted qualWying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible for the classification because he has not submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the I 0 criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in 
a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless .. 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. 
Matter of A-S-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-, ID# 875167 (AAO Feb. 13. 201 8)