dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

MATTER OF E-J-B-P-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 8, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITIONER FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a musician, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § ll 53(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or 
met the requirements of at least three of ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets the requirements of 
two evidentiary criteria in addition to the two that the Director found that he meets. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to 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 in the area o.f 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
.
Maller of E-J-B-P-
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recogntzed award). If that 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) (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. 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), ajf'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (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 Director found that the Petitioner meets two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)(x), those relating to judging the work of others and playing a leading or critical role 
for organizations with a distinguished reputation. We agree with the Director. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that he also meets the ctjteria for lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
awards and material about him in professional or major media. After reviewing all of the evidence 
in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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 submitted evidence that he received a award in 2014 from the 
Additional evidence indicates that the winners of this award are selected 
by the state of and the 
chapter of this organization, and that the award given to the Petitioner is for "honorific mention" in 
recognition of "15 years of Extraordinary Professional Activity." Unlike an "honorable mention," 
which is sometimes used to name the runners-up to a prize, the honorific mention in this case refers 
to a special category of award for career achievement. In any case, while we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's receipt of this award, we agree with the Director that the evidence does not establish that 
it is nationally or internationally recognized. 
2 
.
Matter of E-.1-B-P-
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE); the Petitioner submitted an undated article 
from the website of , a major Venezuelan newspaper, which discusses the 50th 
anniversary of the award. Since other evidence in the record states that the award 
has been in existence for 62 years, this single article in major media does not establish that the award 
is recognized in Venezuela or elsewhere. Another recent article was submitted from the website 
www , but this article focuses on the first edition of this award presentation in 
in 2016, and additional information about the reach or scope of this website was not 
submitted. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional information from the 
website, which includes · a list of entertainment figures who have received an award from the 
organization. Although some of the names on this list include internationally known entertainers, 
the website does not indicate which of these individuals received the award for "honorific mention," 
and thus does not add evidence to establish the national or international recognition of the award 
received by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Published material about the individual 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) 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence of articles about him and his work that were published on 
the websites of thr~e Venezuelan publications. In his decision, the Director noted that the evidence 
of website statistics was insufficient to establish that these websites qualify as professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. On appeal, the Petitioner has submitted more complete 
information about each of the media outlets and their websites. However, as discussed below none 
of them qualify as professional or major trade publications. 
While each of the articles submitted are about the Petitioner and his work as a musician, the article 
published in print and on the website of appears to be a paid advertisement, and does 
not list the author of the material as required. Notably, review of the copy of the print edition 
submitted on appeal reveals that the article is printed in a different font then the other two articles on 
the same page, includes the Petitioner's website address and social media information at the bottom, 
and lists an attorney's name and information below that. This type of promotional material cannot 
be considered under this criterion, which is intended to gauge the interest in the Petitioner's work 
and acclaim received from others in the field, as well as the general public. 
The other two articles initially submitted by the Petitioner, published on the websites of 
and I are clearly about him and his work, and include information about the author and 
date as required. However, the evidence does not establish that these publications, and their related 
websites, are major media. This evidence includes more complete reports of web analytics than had 
been initially submitted, online articles about each newspaper, letters from the newspapers, and 
information from their websites. The information about indicates that it is published in 
the city of __ and distributed throughout the state of and its website ranks 68th in 
3 
.
Matter of E-J-B-P-
Venezuela according to Similarly, the information about indicates that is 
also a local or regional newspaper with circulation in the Venezuelan state of with a country 
rank of 288 for its website according to Unlike the evidence of the 
limited reach of these publications does not establish that they and their associated websites can be 
considered major media. 
The Petitioner has also submitted copies of Spanish-language articles on appeal, which include his 
name and photograph and were·published in magazines. Any document in a foreign language must 
be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not 
submit a properly certified English language translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully 
determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner 's claims. 
For all of the reasons stated above, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
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 need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mauer of E-J-B-P-, ID# 1398530 (AAO Aug. 8, 2018) 
• 
4