dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6548360 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a recording engineer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had established sustained acclaim through a major, one-time achievement 
as claimed. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On the appeal form, the Petitioner indicated that he would submit a brief within 30 days. Ten months 
later, the record contains no further submission from the Petitioner. We consider the record to be complete 
as it now stands. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 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 
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 their 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 
they 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to continue working as a mixing and recording engineer (and bassist) tori 
I ltor which he has already worked on several past projects. ,___ _ ___, 
,i=,...,;;;.~..u...u...=i.....:=.J..l"-'='-',as a recording engineer and post-production engineer on .__ _______ __. 
'-----;::::sz====---.:T..:..h:..:::.e..:..P~e.::.tit.::.io::::n..:.::.:er contends that he received a major, international Iv recognized award 
because ,__ _______ ___, won a Grammy Award for Bestl , ""j I Music 
Performance/Song. He does not claim, in the alternative, to have satisfied at least three of the lesser 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Therefore, we will not discuss those lesser criteria in this 
decision. 
The Petitioner did serve as an engineer on a Grammy-winning project, but the record does not show that 
he received a Grammy Award. Rather, he received a certificate from the National Academy of Recording 
Arts and Sciences (NARAS) "in recognition of [his] participation as Engineer on the GRAMMY Award­
winning recording." NARAS' logo depicts the distinctive statuette presented to Grammy winners, but he 
did not receive such a statuette. 
An email message from NARAS tol I Publishing states: "The winner certificate ... is given 
to Producers and Engineers that had less than 51 % of time on the album. So while they don't get statues, 
the [Petitioner and three others] are listed to receive winner certificates from us!" The three other named 
individuals had various production and engineering roles. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner did not document that he personally received 
the Grammy Award. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
2 
The petitioner is a winner of the~Grammy award in the Best~-~-----~ 
Music Performance/Song category. As is common in the music industry, the petitioner 
shared the award with several others involved in the production .... [T]he Center Director 
denied the petition on the grounds that ... the petitioner was not the sole winner of the 
Grammy award . . . . The Center Director's decision is arbitrary and capricious because 
no statute, regulation, or precedential decision mandates that a petitioner must be the sole 
recipient of a major, international award. 
The Petitioner, here, misstates the grounds for denial. The Director did not deny the petition because "the 
petitioner was not the sole winner," nor did the Director require that "a petitioner must be the sole recipient 
of a major, international award." We recognize that certain awards or prizes, such as Nobel Prizes, can 
go to joint winners. Rather, the Director found that the Petitioner did not document his receipt of a 
Grammy Award, or show that a "winner ce1tificate" relating to a Grammy Award has recognition 
comparable to the award itself. 
The Petitioner did not establish that NARAS either (1) gave the Petitioner a Grammy award, (2) identified 
him as a Grammy winner (rather than as a participant in a Grammy-winning project), or (3) acknowledged 
that the award was the result of the Petitioner's engineering work. The name of the category highlights 
the "Performance" and "Song," rather than the recording or the engineering thereof, and NARAS has not 
indicated that the quality or technical aspects of the engineering helped to determine the outcome of the 
award. The Petitioner acknowledges that NARAS does award Grammys specifically for engineering 
work, but the Petitioner does not claim to have received such an award. 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of a one-time achievement, and has not 
claimed to meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in 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 acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3