dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7861708 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a Contemporary Christian music composer and director, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(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 Petitioner satisfied 
only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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 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 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 his or her 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 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). 
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) 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that between 2009 and 2014, the Petitioner completed the degrees of Bachelor of 
Science, Master of Arts, Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry atl !university in Virginia, 
where he was also an adjunct instructor of music and worship studies. The Petitioner received 0-1 
nonimmi rant classification in 201 7 and has been employed as the music director for I I 
c::::J.in Florida I ,I The Petitioner previously worked as an assistant music director 
forl_J in.___ ___ ____. Canad~I I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only 
one of the evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. 204.5 h 3 iv . The record reflects that the 
Petitioner participated in judging for the 201 .__ ___________________ _. 
Band Competition. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging 
criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six additional criteria, discussed below. 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three 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 maintains that he meets this criterion based on his receipt of the I !Music 
A ward in 2009. In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the 
prizes or awards, and that they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, 
the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of 
awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Petitioner submitted a photograph of his award plaque reflecting that he received the ._I ___ _. 
Music Award "[t]o commemorate the track .__ ______ __.on the Christian Music Weekly's 
Inspo Son~s of 2009 Chart." The record, however, lacks sufficient objective evidence regarding the 
I J Music Award to establish that it is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
f r x 11 n in m i r h Th Petitioner provided al 12009 article titled 'I I 
.__ __________ ~ ___ ......... u_b_l_is_,hed by Liberty News. The article indicates that the 
Petitioner composed the song '.__ ______ '~' the title track on~-----------~ 
CJ CD released inl O 12009 on t Music record label. However, the article does not 
mention the Petitioner's receipt of the Music A ward. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides an undated document with the heading l I Mnlic Award" 
that bears the logo oti !Music. According to the information provided, the 2009 I 
Music Award is given to a composer based upon "top charting radio airplay, ongoing inclusion in 
weekly worship services as recognized byl I and 
inclusion in print/digital download for choir, praise band and orchestra." The document indicates that 
the selection criteria include "charting in the 'Top 10' on a rei:mtable radio chart (i,e, Billboard, 
Christian Music Weekly, Neilson)," having been "[r]eleased on al IProject in the past year 
and distributed nationwide," having been "[r]egistered with I I and have ranked within their 
charts of songs used by churches in North America." The press release shows that five songs were 
nominated for the award, and that the winner was to be presented "a commemorative plaque with the 
highest charting position achieved" at an annual gala. However, this document is not a letter and is 
not attributed to or signed by a responsible authority for that organization. As a result, we cannot 
determine the actual source of the information contained therein, which limits the probative value of 
this evidence. 
Although the documentation indicates that the award is given byl I Music to artists working 
for the record label, the Petitioner did not show that the field recognizes the 'I I Music Award" 
as a national or international award for excellence. The submitted evidence does not demonstrate, for 
example, that the award winners receive a level of media coverage associated with a nationally or 
internationally recognized award in the entertainment industry. Therefore, while the Petitioner 
documented his receipt of the I I Music Award, the supporting evidence is insufficient to 
document that this is an nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his 
field. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
2 Id. 
3 The record reflects that the song was in the top ten oflnspirational songs on the Christian Music Weekly radio chart in 
.__ _______ ~009. It appears, therefore, that the Liberty News article was published before the Petitioner 
received the award. 
3 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing his work 
as a Contemporary Christian music composer and director. 4 The Director considered this 
documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work 
constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, 
we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance in the field. 
For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to appreciate the global impact of._l __ _. 
I t as advancing and expanding the reach of the genre of Christian Music" and contends that 
the song "struck a [ chord] with untold nwnbers of people nationally and abroad." As ~vid~re, the I 
Petitioner points to letters of support froml ] the Petitioner's classmate from 
University and the managing partner of the German music publishing clmpanyll I 
indicates that~ partners with various music companies, including University's 
I I~ Ito "[supply] German churches with new songs." Regarding the song 
I L" he states that "whenl Ir signed] the song, I was asked to work out an 
official German translation. He further provides that his company has six of the Petitioner's songs in 
its catalogue and "they are among our best-selling works." These letters do not offer sufficiently 
detailed information, nor does the record include adequate corroborating documentation, to 
demonstrate the nature of specific original contributions that the Petitioner has made to the field that 
have been considered to be of major significance. 
As further evidence for this criterion! the Petitioner provides letters of support from several other 
colleagues and mentors, many from_ I University. For example,! I a 
songwriter, musician and worship leader, states that the Petitionr's doctoral thrsis "was a great help 
in my own Universit doctoral dissertation .... " ~-----~-Director of Product 
Development for~------~' indicates she has worked with the Petitioner for several years 
in organizing song showcases, where his responsibilities included song selection, working with bands, 
show direction and production, and personal performance. She credits the Petitioner's expertise as a 
professional musician and his leadership skills with college students in creating well-organized 
programs. 
In addition,! I a music artist and producer, indicates that the Petitioner was his worship 
studies professor atl I University and taught him the "foundational principles" of leadership, 
large group communication, and musical performance . .__ ________ __. the Petitioner's 
professor atl _ !University, states that "[w]hile a student and [a]djunct teachler, [the ~etitioner] 
completed several songwriting projects, performed by the Choirs and Orchestra at niversity 
4 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
and subsequently published b~ ~, He emphasizes that the Petitionre=r--=' sa....:s=o=n=g._.j __ --,.. _ _J 
I I was "also performed across the United States, in Europe and Russia." I I an 
award-wining songwriter, indicates that he has worked with the petitioner on "nationwide events in 
Canada, and across the United States" and praises his "expertise in songwriting, performing, speaking, 
and teaching." 
While the above-referenced letters praise the Petitioner's skills as a music composer, performer and 
teacher, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's contributions as a music composer and 
director rise to the level of a contribution of major significance in the music field. For instance, the 
record does not show that his skills in music composition and direction have widely influenced the 
field beyond the programs where he has participated and taught, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance in the field. The language of this regulatory criterion requires that 
the Petitioner's original contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly 
affecting his students and colleagues. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Similarly, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's song I I' or his other 
music compositions have widely influenced the work of other Contemporary Christian musicians, that 
his music compositions are highly renowned by recognized music critics, or that his original work 
otherwise constitutes contributions of major significance in the field. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that his work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence showin that his doctoral dissertation titled ' 
--...---------------------------------' was published in 
2014. The Director determined that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. In reaching this 
conclusion, the Director noted that the regulations clearly require evidence of authorship of articles in 
the field in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 5 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I I the administrator of I I University's 
institutional repository,~-----~ I indicates that"[ o ]nly works that are created by 
our students and faculty are permitted to be included in our institutional repository." She provides 
5 The Director further emphasized that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that his dissertation has been cited by others. 
The director concluded that"[ w ]ithout any citation history, it cannot be concluded that it is a scholarly publication." The 
level ofrecognition received by the Petitioner's disseitation would be more relevant to an examination of the totality of the 
evidence. As discussed above, where a petitioner provides qualifying evidence satistying the initial evidentiary criteria, 
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. 
5 
that the Petitioner's dissertation was submitted into.__ ______ _, in D 2014, after it was 
defended and approved by the dissertation committee. She emphasizes that works in I I 
University's institutional repository may be accessed by researchers around the world "through 
searches in Google, Google Chrome, Google Scholar, and other major search engines." 
The publication of the Petitioner's doctoral dissertation onl I, the I I University 
website repository for publication of its student and faculty theses and dissertations, with no apparent 
selection process for publication, does not amount to the publication of a scholarly article in a 
professional journal or other major media. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding 
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. In addition, this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 7 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies this criterion as an academic....atJIUniversity 
"assisting in the development of a music program," and as a worship pastor at ~hes in "the 
selection and performance of Christian music." Although the Petitioner provided letters from 
representatives of those organizations, they did not describe in sufficient detail what role the Petitioner 
has played in the organizations' respective activities or how his role has been critical to the outcome 
of the organizations' activities. 8 
For example.I I, a pastor who was the Petitioner's mentor atl I for five years, 
indicates that as the church's assistant music director the Petitioner formed a choir that assisted in 
worship services, frequently sang and played keyboards, and assisted in monthly music training nights. 
I I the lead pastor of I I indicates that the Petitioner "led 
congregational worship, mentored and trained musicians] [ and chose music for Sunday worship and 
other special services." Neither the letter ofl _ nor establishes that the 
Petitioner played a leading or critical role in those ch h s statements that the Petitioner 
formed a choir that assisted in worship services and.__ _____ ~' s statements that the Petitioner 
chose music and led congregational worship do not establish how he played a leading or critical role. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id., at 10-11. 
8 Id. at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or 
critical role can be particularly helpful in making this determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative 
information that specifically addresses how the role for the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
6 
In addition, the broad statements oft Ian executive ministry consultant at._l ____ _,, 
that the Petitioner "has played a critical role by shaping and developing the songwriting and worship 
culture" at the church are not sufficiently supported in the record and do not establish how the 
Petitioner played a critical role. 
Further, I I an associate professor of songwriting and commercial music at .... l _.,.....,...__. 
University, asserts that the Petitioner "played a leadership role" in helping to establish the songwriting 
program atl I University through his "curriculum development" and promotion of the program 
"at Christian events, songwriting workshops and seminars," and a "key role" in the program's 
'Principles of Songwriting' class. However, this broad statement does not contain the detailed and 
probative information needed to establish, as claimed, that the Petitioner's participation was of 
significant importance to the outcome of the university's activities. Finally, even if the Petitioner 
played a leading or critical role in their development, a program or a class is not an "organization or 
establishment" and the Petitioner's role would not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of his paystub indicating thatl I paid him a net biweekly 
salary of $2,607 in April 2019, or an annual salary of approximately $65,175. The Petitioner also 
provided, as a point of comparison, an O*Net printout from the Department of Labor, Office of Foreign 
Labor Certification, reflecting that the Level 4 prevailing wage for "Music Directors and Composers" 
between July 2018 and June 2019 in the Petitioner's geographic area is $145,704 per year. Based on 
the information provided, the Petitioner has not established that he has commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner also provided an O*Net printout reflecting the prevailing wage for "Clergy," however, 
because the Petitioner's field is music composer and director, offering wages for clergy for his 
geographic area does not provide an appropriate basis for comparison in demonstrating that his 
earnings constitute a high salary relative to "others in the field." The Petitioner must present evidence 
showing that he has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison with those 
performing similar services in the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) ( considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The Petitioner 
has not established that the wage information he presented for clergy constitutes an appropriate basis 
for comparison. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least two 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
7 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant pet1t10ns are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Petitioner satisfies the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), he 
does not meet any additional criteria on appeal relating to nationally or internationally recognized 
awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading or critical roles with organizations, or high 
salary or other remuneration. While he argues and submits evidence for one additional criterion on 
appeal, relating to commercial successes in the performing arts at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), we need 
not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 9 Accordingly, 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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner's work as a Contemporary Christian music composer and director has brought 
praise for his creativity, experience, and technical skill, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
9 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9