dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-D~M-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 11,2017 
PETITION: FQRM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a pop singer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award or that he had satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must 
meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief, stating that he received a major award 
and meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW . 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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); R(jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a pop singer who performed with the group, On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that he won a major, internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and 
that he also satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that he meets the following criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership under 8 C.F.R. § 2204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), artistic display under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), high salary 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and commercial successes under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has a one-time achievement or fulfills the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. In addition, the Petition~r argues that another singer in his group has been granted 
extraordinary ability status, which is further proof of his eligibility. However, the Petitioner's 
extraordinary ability petition is reviewed on its own merits. 1 
1 
Further, we are not bound by decisions of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 
No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
2 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor, " the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly , with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major , internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C .C.A.N . 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a· one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major , 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, statingthat a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardle ss 
of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements , it is clear from the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationall y recognized in the field as one of 
the top awards. 
The Petitioner argues that his first place finish for ' ' at 
the 2010 in Bulgaria , satisfies the one-time 
achievement requirement. According to screenshots from the festival ' s website that was submitted 
by the Petitioner, the pop contest has been held since 1992, is the only international festival m 
Bulgaria , and attracts singers and composers from 42 countries . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a major , 
international[ly] recognized award." The documentation, however , does not discuss the festival' s 
awards or otherwise indicate that they are recognized as major, international awards. The Petitioner 
did not present, for example, evidence that the competition or prize is widely reported by 
international media comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Oscar or 
Olympic medal winners. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the 
requirements of a one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiar y Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received the following: 
for the 'at the 2011 
appreciation from the 
of appreciation from the 2015 
for "the 
for 
1) a certificate for a ' 
2) a certificate of 
" 3) a certificat e 
' and 4) a certificate from the 
from 
Canada ." Although the Petitioner 
Canada , for ,. 1 n 
provided evidence showing his receipt of certificates , the 
3 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation evidencing that the certificates are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner offered evidence of his previously discussed award from the 2010 
as well as the following: 1) a diploma for prize at the 2014 
2) a certificate for ' ' at the 
by the . 3) a certificate 
of appreciation "for 
Canada and worldwide" by 
'by the 
appreciation "for 
' at the 
Ill 
4) a certificate for an ' 
, 5) a diploma of appreciation for 
and 6) a certificate of 
in the world" by the 
For each of these prizes, the Petitioner provided documentation regarding the awarding entities but 
did not establish that the awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence. For instance, the Petitioner submitted information about the 
including its history and past performers. 2 The evidence , however, does not indicate 
that the prizes or awards from the are nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence. In fact, there is no mention of the awards garnered from the festival. 
Moreover, the Petitioner offered a screenshot relating to the 
that lists and explains each award. The Petitioner , however, did not show that the awards are 
nationally or internationally 
recognized, such as by providing evidence of major media coverage. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .field for lvhich class~fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that because is registered with the 
he is also a member of the 
and the 
Although he provided a certificate verifying 
that membership with or 
trademark registration , he did not establish 
meets this criterion. 
Regarding the Petitioner submitted screenshots of website reflecting a 
statement from president, attesting to the importance of the association to 
Romanian composers and musicians. In addition, the Petitioner presented screenshots from 
Wikipedia regarding the background and history of While the Petitioner established 
that is a member of the organization, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
2 
Although we discuss a sampling of the awards, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, as a 
condition for membership. The Petitioner, for example, did not submit bylaws, 
showing that membership is restricted to those who have outstanding achievements rather than open 
t9 all Romanian composers and musicians. 
As it pertains to the Petitioner provided a screenshot from website indicating that it 
was established by law under the to develop and strengthen 
intellectual property rights. Further, the Petitioner offers documents regarding decision to 
apply tariffs and calculate remunerations. The Petitioner, however, did not show that he or 
is a member of The record does not support the Petitioner's contention that registration with 
also confers membership with Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that 
membership with requires outstanding achievements of its members , let alone that IS 
an association that accepts individuals or groups for membership. 
Relating to the Petitioner offers documentation reflecting that it is a non-profit 
association 
to collect and distribute money due to Romanian and foreign performers. In addition , the 
Petitioner submitted a certificate indicating that he is member of the association. The Petitioner , 
however, did not present documentation, such as the bylaws, establishing the membership 
requirements for Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership with 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts, consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). For the reasons 
discussed, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien 's work in the field .for which classtfication 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 submitted a screenshot from relating to the Petitioner's admission 
to the hospital for a medical problem. Although the article is about the Petitioner, it does not relate 
to his field of music for which he seeks classification. Moreover, on appeal , the Petitioner provides 
· a screenshot from The screenshot, . however , is in a foreign 
language , and the Petitioner did not present the required certified English language translation .3 
Further, the Petitioner offers a screenshot from www.facebook.com reflecting contact 
information. The screenshot does not indicate the website's popularity or otherwise show that it is 
considered a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from reflecting published material 
about the Petitioner relating to his field. The Petitioner, however, did not include the date of the 
article as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover, Petitioner submits a screenshot from 
3 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.2(b )(3). 
5 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
that appears to relate to contact information for the website; however the Petitioner 
did not present the required English language translation. Further, the Petitioner did not establish 
that is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Further, as indicated in the Director's decision, the Petitioner presented a copy of the front page of 
the The record does not contain a certified translation of the newspaper page, and the 
Petitioner did not include the title, date, and author ofthe material. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
a screenshot from Wikipedia regarding but does not provide a translation of an article 
from the publication. Without a properly certified English language translation of the article, we 
cannot determine that it reflects published material about him relating to his work. In addition , the 
Wikipedia screenshot is in a foreign language, and the Petitioner did not offer a certified English 
language translation. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that is a professional or 
major trade publication mother major medium . 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from reflecting an interview with 
the other member of The interview constitutes published material about 
rather than the Petitioner, who is mentioned only once. In addition, the Petitioner did not include the 
required author of the article or present evidence demonstrating that is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. 
The Petitioner also offered a screenshot from that includes 
an interview with both members of While this evidence reflects published material about 
the Petitioner relating to his work, it does not include the required author, and he did not provide 
supporting evidence showing that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major medium. 
The Petitioner also argues that was invited to appear on "famous" television shows and 
submitted photographs of the performances. However, he did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the programs in which he appeared constitute "major media," nor did he include all 
required information such as the title, date, and author of the material." Accordingly, the Petitioner 
did not establish that he fulfills this regulatory criterion . 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientffic , scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
The Petitioner contends that his submission of diplomas, photographs , concert posters, and television 
appearances satisfies this criterion. Although the Petitioner's documentation reflects 
performances, he did not show how they represent original contributions of major significance in his 
field. For example, the Petitioner provided a certificate from the mayor of Romania to 
"for their support in organizing the exhibition events dedicated to ' 
2007," and a certificate from the mayor of Romania "as a sign of 
gratitude and thankfulness for participation at festivities. " However , the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how concerts or music impacted or influenced the pop music field beyond 
6 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
the venues in which it performed. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). While the Petitioner contends on appeal that his music group , was one of the 
first to adopt and popularize the '' style of music, the record does not include sutlicient 
documentation to support this statement or to demonstrate the significance of this claimed 
contribution. 
The record also contains eight letters regarding 
of the letters state, in part: 
performances on television shows. Each 
and [the Petitioner], members of proved to be 
extremely talented artists, with strong artistic qualities, two uniqe voicesc [sic] in the 
music interpreted by them and promoted not only in Romania but also in different 
countries in the word [sic]. 
We recommend the two artists and [the Petitioner] , members 
of , as serious and talented people , suitable to successfuJiy 
represent Romanian music aboard [sic]. 
These letters do not show how the Petitioner's contributions have been significant. For example, the 
letters do not explain how the Petitioner's "extreme talents," "strong artistic qualities," and "unique 
voices" are considered of major significance to pop music or his field. Ultimately, letters that repeat 
the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's contributions have already influenced 
the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff"d in part , 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010 , the Kazarian court reiterated 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') conclusion that the "letters from physics 
professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent 
with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily 
contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen. , 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.D.C. 1990). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has displayed 
his work at festivals and concerts, such as the 2010 
m Bulgaria. Therefore , the Petitioner satisfies this 
criterion. 
7 
.
Matter ofC-D-M-
Evidence that the alien 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 part of the singing duo for the Petitioner has established that he performed in a leading 
or critical role. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires the role to be "for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not argue or refer to evidence indicating that has a distinguished reputation. Moreover , the 
record does not reflect that enjoys such status. For example , the Petitioner did not show 
that has received significant awards or garnered critical acclaim. Because he did not 
establish that has a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner contends that he received top remuneration for star singers at his concerts and 
television appearances . He also claims that he provided "copies of some of the receipts with English 
translations for the money received for the concerts " indicating that he commands $10,000 per 
concert in Romania. The record, however , includes invoices for recitals and shows ranging from 
600 euros to 5,000 euros. Moreover, neither the Petitioner's name nor is listed on the 
invoices establishing that the Petitioner commanded the earnings. 
Notwithstanding the above, this regulatory criterion requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that he 
commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services "in relation to others in 
the field." Here, the Petitioner did not present evidence comparing his salary or remuneration to 
· other singers to show that he earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration for services . 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts. as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner states that he submitted copies of his compact discs and concert flyers showing that 
had nine successful albums and extensively aired music videos. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of commercial successes in the form of "receipts " or "sales ." 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of box office receipts or music sales. The 
submission of samples of the Petitioner's music or evidence of his performances is insufficient to 
meet this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills 
this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten 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 
8 
Matter ofC-D-M-
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. Further, as 
the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, 
we need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" 
under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of C-D-M-, ID# 452807 (AAO Aug. 11, 20 17) 
9