dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-O-D-M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 20, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a music school, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a violinist, as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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 petlt10n, concluding that while the 
Beneficiary satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not establish the 
Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim in his field, and that he is among the very 
small percentage at the top of his field. The Petitioner then appealed the matter to our office. While 
we disagreed with the Director's decision regarding specific criteria, we found that while the 
Beneficiary met the requisite three criteria, the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he has the 
necessary acclaim and standing in his field to qualify for this highly restrictive classification. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets additional criteria, and presents many of 
the same arguments made in its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) as well as on 
appeal, including that the Beneficiary holds a major, internationally recognized award. 
Upon de nova review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or 
regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or 
Department of Homeland Security policy. 
1 See Matter of W-O-D-M-C-, ID# 1264406 (AAO Apr. 26, 2018) 
.
Matter ofW-O-D-M-C-
II. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary meets the criterion relating to published material about him, and his service as a judge of 
the work of others. However , we disagreed that the evidence showed that he had received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards, but found that his work had been displayed in 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. In addition, we found that the Beneficiary's performance of 
which was recognized as the fastest such performance at the time by 
did not qualify as a major , internationally recognized award . Upon review 
of the totality of the evidence, we also agreed with the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
had not established the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim , or that he is among 
the very small percentage of violinists at the top of his field. 
On motion, the Petitioner presents many of the same arguments, and references the same evidence, 
as it did on appeal and in response to the Director's RFE. Regarding its assertion that the 
Beneficiary's as the fastest violinist qualifies as a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner again points to the referencing of the 
franchise in several major media articles as evidence of the recognition of the Beneficiary's award. 
It also references a single article about the previous holder of this record in support of the assetiion 
that it is based upon excellence in the field of endeavor. However , the Petitioner has not stated that 
our finding that his Beneficiary's does not qualify as a major, 
internationally recognized award was based upon an incorrect application of law or policy, and it 
does not identify a pertinent decision, statute, regulation or policy which would support such an 
assertion. 
The Petitioner's brief also focuses on several of the individual criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) , asserting that the Beneficiary qualifies under those criteria in addition 
to those that we already he determined he has met. However, when conducting a final merits 
determination once we've determined that the three required criteria have been met, the focus of our 
analysis shifts to whether the entire record establishes that the individual has shown sustained 
national or international acclaim, or is one of the very few at the very top of his or her field. See 
Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0). 
The Petitioner asserts that our previous decision regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the 
work of others introduced a heightened standard by considering requirements not present in the plain 
language of that evidentiary criterion. As explained above, having already concluded that the 
Beneficiary had met the required three evidentiary criteria, including the plain language of the 
criterion relating to his service as a judge at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), we then reviewed this 
evidence as part of the final merits determination to assess whether it demonstrates sustained 
national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage of violinists at the very 
top of his field. Our analysis of the prestige and frequency of the Beneficiary's judging activity, and 
determination that it was not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim , was 
properly conducted within the Kazarian framework. 
2 
.
Matter ofW-O-D-M-C-
Regarding the criterion relating to the Beneficiary's membership in an association which requires 
outstanding achievements, the Petitioner asserts that we did not consider all of the membership 
requirements. In footnote 2 of our previous decision, we noted that the bylaws of the 
of which the Beneficiary is a member, lists several membership requirements. On motion, 
the Petitioner points out that this footnote did not list the requirements of recommendation by five 
permanent members of the organization, and "active and brilliant participation and presence in music 
society in national and international scale." However, although the Petitioner stresses that this 
organization is led by one of the most famous musicians in Iran, it has not established that 
membership as a permanent member places him at the very top of his field, or that our previous 
decision was based upon an incorrect application of law or policy. 
In addition, the Petitioner refers to letters from Persian language media outlets including Broadcast 
Middle East FZ-LLC (Farsi 1 television), Los Angeles radio station KIRN, and satellite broadcaster 
TIN TV Int'l., which indicate that they have aired performances by and interviews of the 
Beneficiary. It claims that, contrary to a statement in our previous decision which references a 
single broadcast on Farsi 1, material about the Beneficiary and his work has been broadcast on many 
occasions , and seen or heard by millions. 
As noted in our prior decision, much of the evidence submitted in support of these letters is either 
incomplete or not about the Beneficiary. The record does include a screenshot and description of a 
television show which aired on Farsi 1 in which the Beneficiary is interviewed and performs , which 
is sufficient to meet the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) relating to 
published material about him and his work. However , the letter from Farsi 1 indicating that "one of 
the exceptional works" of the Beneficiary was "exhibited" and repeated more than ten times per 
month for nearly three years does not sufficiently identify what was "exhibited" or in what manner 
to determine whether it was this show. Similarly, the letters from KIRN and TIN TV also state that 
they exhibited or showcased the Beneficiary's work, and broadcast interviews of him, but do not 
specify dates or the subject matter. In addition, no evidence of these broadcasts, such as transcripts 
or broadcast schedules, appears in the record and, thus, do not demonstrate acclaim. The Petitioner 
has submitted other evidence, such as webpages that mention the Beneficiary as a member of a 
musical group or a contestant in a competition. However, while these tangential references show the 
Beneficiary has received some acclaim, they do not demonstrate that he is among the very small 
percentage of violinists at the top of his field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
our finding that this evidence did not show the type of sustained and widespread media attention that 
is indicative of a violinist at the top of his or her field was incorrect based upon the record at the time 
of the decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In light of the above, while the Petitioner requests that we reconsider our previous decision 
dismissing its appeal, it has not demonstrated that we incorrectly applied any law or policy, or that 
3 
Matter of W-O-D-M-C-
we erred in our determination based on the record at the time. Nor are its assertions supported by 
pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofW-O-D-M-C-, ID# 1815867 (AAO Dec. 20, 2018) 
4