dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF A-1-P- DATE: FEB. 23, 2017 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a violist, seeks classification as an "alien 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not satisfy any initial evidence criteria, when evidence meeting at least three criteria is required. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief. She indicates that she has 
provided material for at least three initial evidence criteria and has shown her extraordinary ability as 
a violist. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate her extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specitically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act notes that an alien qualities for an extraordinary ability 
visa if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, atis, 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. 
(b)(6)
Malter of A-1-P-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage \vho 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 the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. If a petitioner meets three criteria, \:Ve then examine the evidence of record in the 
context of a final merits decision. See Kazarian V. users, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (discussing 
a two-part review); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. 
Users, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) ; Matter (~l ehawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found the Petitioner did not submit the necessary initial evidence of her extraordinary 
ability as a violist because she did not demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award or provide documentation satisfying at least three of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient initial 
evidence to meet only one of the necessary three criteria, as further explained below. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation ol the individual's receipt ollesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field ofendeavor. 
On appeal the Petitioner references several honors she received related to her role as violist. She 
provided a copy of an undated she received from the 
The certitl.cate states it was awarded to the Petitioner for her performances 
with the group from 2012 to 2015 and is signed by the group's artistic 
director and conductor. The Petitioner provided documentation regarding the accomplishments of 
as well as those of However, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence to show that the ce11ificate constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award. As noted, the certificate is undated. She did not provide information regarding the 
history of such certificates issued by There is no indication of how many 
certificates are awarded each year or the criteria for selection of recipients. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-1-P-
The Petitioner also provided evidence indicating that she received the 
award 2014 The Petitioner provided a photograph of an engraved trophy. 
Again, however, the Petitioner did not provide information regarding the a\vard itself. As a result, 
she has not shown that it has national or international recognition for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Lastly, the Petitioner indicates that she received a full scholarship to study viola performance for a 
Master's degree in music at the in Pennsylvania. The Petitioner did not 
provide evidence from the university regarding such a scholarship. The only references to a 
scholarship are in two letters from individuals without a affiliation. 
Regardless, even if the Petitioner had demonstrated her receipt of the scholarship, she has not 
provided evidence in support of characterizing it as a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. As a result, she has not satisfied this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associathms in thefieldj(n- lvhich classification ;~· 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. asjudged hy recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The Petitioner notes her membership in four organizations: the 
the and the 
the 
For 
each of these organizations, however, the Petitioner did not provide documentation to show that they 
require outstanding achievements of their members. Similarly, she did not submit information for 
any of the organizations showing that the outstanding achievements of prospective members are 
chosen by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner 
provided the following information about the groups: 
• The Petitioner provided two 2014 performance reviev,rs about 
the indicating that orchestra was formed recently. According to 
one review, the new orchestra had the dual mission of providing "high-quality orchestral 
performances for audiences of all ages and the presentation in schools of music education 
concerts, initially for grades 5-8." 
• The Petitioner provided a letter from the concertmaster 
violinist with the orchestra. The letter states that the Petitioner "volunteered her time to help 
to further the development of a local orchestra, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofA-1-P-
• 
• 
The record shows that the Petitioner was a violist with the 
from 2012 to 2015. On appeal, the Petitioner references honors lauded 
on the group's conductor. She notes that the group has made numerous CD recordings and 
has performances that are widely attended . 
of the 
"partner " with the quartet. 
Lastly , the Petitioner has provided evidence that she is member 
On appeal, she emphasizes numerous organizations that 
As noted above, the Petitioner did not provide evidence regarding requirements for membership in 
any of these organizations. She did not provide information regarding the selection process, or 
details regarding the individuals responsible for making member selections. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied this evidentiary criterion. 
Evidence of the individual 's participation , either individually or on a panel . as a judge of' the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield oj'.~pecificationfor which classification is sought. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from the director of the located in 
Romania, indicating that the Petitioner "was an honorary member of the jury at the 
edition of the in 2013.'' This letter 
demonstrates the Petitioner judged the work of others in an allied tield. As a result, the Petitioner 
has satisfied the plain language ofthis criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1~jormed in a leading or critical role fin- organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Tn her initial submission, the Petitioner indicated that, "As the leading viola performer in the 
and as the leading viola performer in the [the 
Petitioner] has led the viola section of world renowned classical music groups.'' Upon review, we 
find that the record does not support this statement. The Petitioner noted that she went from 
chair to chair viola of the 
1 
As the out of violas playing 
with the Petition er does not offer evidence to show she is the leader of 
the section. In addition , the Petitioner has not provided support of her membership in the 
Evidence provided shows that she played with the 
Whereas the is traditionally referred to as one of the top 
orchestras in the United States,L the is a newly formed orchestra, as 
1 
Although the brief submitted with the petition states that she is "now sharing the viola chair in the 
' the record 
does not support this characterization. The Petitioner is listed on all 
programs and she is otherwise referred to as the "ass istant principal violist." 
1 
Although the 1 moniker is now criticized, the has been a traditional member. See 
(last visited Feb. 9, 
2017). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-1-P-
indicated in the performance reviews referenced in the analysis for the preceding criteria. In the 
programs, the Petitioner is listed as or chair in the viola 
section. As a result, the record does not support the statement that the Petitioner "has led the viola 
section of world renowned classical music groups." 
In his denial , the Director addressed the Petitioner 's arguments regarding the importance of the viola 
in an orchestra , stating that, "Within any organization , every role is critical on some level or the 
organization could not function. This does not establish that every role is ' critical ' within the 
meaning of this regulation." On appeal, the Petitioner urges that violas are a critical part of any 
orchestra, and that she has therefore performed in a critical role as an orchestra violist. She states 
that, although the Director's logic may be accurate of some organizations, orchestras and classical 
music generally are different. 
We accept that performing as part of an orchestra necessarily means each performer, to some degree , 
plays a critical role. The evidentiary criteria listed are meant to indicate an individual 's 
extraordinary ability. The interpretation urged by the Petitioner, where participation is sufficient to 
demonstrate a critical role, would not further the purpose of determining whether an individual 
possesses extraordinary ability. For this reason, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of' commercial successes in the pe1:{brming arts. as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette. compact disk. or video sales. 
As evidence of her commercial success, the Petitioner notes that has recorded on 
several labels. She provided copies of the group ' s CD covers to support this statement. Although 
the Petitioner indicates that the group has commercially released albums , the documentation 
provided shows that the Petitioner participated in the recording of albums. However , the 
Petitioner did not provide information regarding record sales. In addition , the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence regarding box office receipts for the group's performances or any other indicator of 
its commercial success. Lastly, even if the Petitioner had demonstrated the commercial success of 
she does not provide persuasive reasoning to be able to claim the success of the 
group as her own. As a result , she has not satisfied this evidentiary criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has provided evidence that satisfies only one of the evidentiary criteria listed in the 
regulations, when evidence satisfying at least three criteria is required. As a result, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of'A-1-P-, JD# 115735 (AAO Feb. 23, 2017) 
5