dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25801610 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 15, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a musician, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner had only 
satisfied two of the initial three required evidentiary criteria. We agreed with the Director's decision 
and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. We also dismissed the combined motion to reopen and motion 
to reconsider on the same grounds. The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 1 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration; be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy; and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Further, the review of any motion is 
narrowed to the basis for the prior adverse decision. Accordingly, we will examine any new facts and 
1 The Petitioner is also requesting oral argument because he believes his arguments have not been adequately addressed in 
writing by the previous decisions. The regulations provide that the requesting party must explain in writing why oral 
argument is necessary. Furthermore, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the sole authority to grant 
or deny a request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that 
cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(b). In this instance, the Petitioner has not identified any 
unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. Further, we are not persuaded that the reasons for the Petitioner's request 
are sufficient to demonstrate the necessity for an oral argument. Moreover, the written record of proceedings, including 
the Petitioner's briefs on appeal and on motion, fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. Consequently, the 
request for oral argument is denied. 
arguments to the extent that they pertain to our most recent decision, the dismissal of the prior 
combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
In the present motion, the Petitioner continues to assert that his work has sustained national and 
international acclaim and that his work constitutes contributions of "major significance" in the music 
and entertainment industry. He further states that he has presented extensive documentation and 
evidence on appeal and on motion to satisfy at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. In 
support of his assertions, the Petitioner submits a news article by Novascience, dated 2019, 
which confirms that he attended the masterclass by the Here, the news 
article does not state a new fact. We have previously acknowledged and discussed the Petitioner's 
masterclass with I I in our appeal dismissal and concluded that he did not establish that 
attending such a class is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Since the current motion to reopen does not include new 
facts or new evidence, the motion does not meet the requirement of a motion to reopen and must be 
dismissed. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated any error of fact or law in our dismissal of the prior motion. 
The Petitioner argues that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy 
because we did not adequately address the 2022 Rolling Stone article. The Petitioner asserts that this 
article is additional evidence that his work is of "major significance in the field" and, therefore, he 
satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v). As discussed in our prior decision, the 2022 Rolling 
Stone article does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing in 2021 as the article is 
from 2022. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the article and find that it 
does not satisfy the "contributions of major significance in the field" criterion. The article outlines 
the Petitioner's career and mentions his accomplishments in the music industry, which we have already 
addressed in our prior decisions. As previously noted, although the Petitioner's work has had influence 
on individuals in the music and entertainment industry, he has not established that the impact of his 
music rises to the level of major significance in the field. The Petitioner has not established that we 
misapplied law or policy and that our prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the decision. Thus, we will also dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2