dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16877892 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a violinist, seeks classification as an individual 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 meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. 
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 )(1 )(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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner is a violinist who has performed with several ensembles and orchestras. Because the 
Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she 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 determined that the Petitioner met one of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record contains evidence that the Petitioner 
displayed her work performing at various artistic and musical venues and therefore we agree with the 
Director that she meets the display criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets four additional criteria. 1 After reviewing all the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that she 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). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she has received lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was for excellence in the 
field include, but are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes, the national or 
international significance of the awards or prizes in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
1 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner initially submitted evidence related to the original contributions 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) but did not satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner does not contest this issue on appeal 
and therefore we deem it to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 T&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 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 
recipients as well as an limitations on competitors. 3 The record contains a letter from the .... I _ ___, 
, a I I from the 
,.1=1 ===========--K,r-io-1-in_C_o_m_p_e_t_it-io_n_,_a_.nd an I I award certificate from the 
Latvian .... I ----=c------'r 
First, the letter froml !"declares that the Petitioner has ermission to travel with the following 
instrument: A violin, made by'---------------~---' and explains that the 
foundation "owns a large collection of musical instruments that are given to musicians on a long-term 
loan basis." The letter frornl ~s accompanied by a screenshot from the website www.tarisio.com 
providing the price history for several violins made by.__ ___ ___,.___,., and a screenshot from the 
I !website indicating the application process to receive a loaned instrument. However, the 
documentation submitted does not established that the petitioner's receipt of the aforementioned 
loaned instrument is a "nationally or internationally recognized prize or award" as required by the 
plain language of~ulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In response to the Director's request for 
evidence from thel__Jof the Petitioner's receipt of an award certificate or prize, the Petitioner did 
not provide evidence that she received an award or prize from the I I Regardless, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the criteria used in providing the Petitioner a loaned violin, which thd I 
website indicates is based onl !residence, regular concert performances, and professional 
endorsements or competition results and audio/video recording, demonstrate the national or 
international significance of that claimed recognition. 
Further, regarding the I I award certificate! the Petitioner previously submitted the 
Petitioner's award letter from the I bf the Latvian. I that states that the award is 
presented annually "to support a Latvian artist and his or her work and presentations" and is 
accompanied by $1,000 in prize money. The Petitioner farther submitted an article from the print 
publication Neatkarigas T.',1.DJ.UJ.LJ.L.4-'inas that states that 'The Latvian I I 
awarded [the Petitioner a Award in 2014 at the Proclamation Day event at thd !Church 
venue" and that the 'L__Jr-1-----L..1.LUJ.trd isl I Latvian culture award which is awarded to talented 
musicians who perform in.___~-" This sin~le article does not support the Petitioner's claim that the 
award she received from The Latvian I ~ I is a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in her field. 
In addition the Petitioner rovided letters from the Latvian.__ ______ ~ and judges of the 
2012 iolin Competition in Lithuania, explaining why she received 
their awards. For instance.__ ____ _. of the Latvian I lstated t.,.,... ....................... ner was 
selected "because of her multiple performances outside of Latvia and and her 
reco~nized talent and skill in the area of Baltic music."L..._ _____ ,----,__ _ _____p a judge of the 
2012.__~--------~lviolin Competition and lecturer a.__ _ ___,University College of 
Fine Arts, explains that the competition is "part of an International Summer Masterclass program." 
She stated that the competition "involved 20 participants who had to prepare 'Summer' by Antonio 
Vivaldi," and that the Petitioner was "a winner because of her impressive stage presence, nuanced tone 
quality, clear technique and articulation." 4 While I I indicated that the 
3 Id. (indicating that an award limited to competitors fi-om a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance.) 
4 Although we discuss a sample letter from the judges of the 201_,_ _________ _.Violin Competition, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
masterclass attracted participants from different countries, we note that showing a diverse pool of 
competitors, without more, does not establish the requisite recognition. The record lacks evidence 
sufficient to verify that the awards issued by this competition are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field, or evidence that the Petitioner herself received any 
recognition from outside the issuing organization. As discussed previously, in order to meet this 
criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that her prizes or awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. 5 
Here, the letters do not show that her awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in the field, nor does the record include other evidence demonstrating such recognition. Without 
evidence of the entrance requirements and restrictions, information on the number of competitors in 
the Petitioner's category, or evidence of the level ofrecognition associated with the awards, we cannot 
find that the Petitioner has satisfied each element of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 6 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that an article and interview published on www.lsm.lv 
satisfy this criterion. 7 The record, however, does not reflect that she provided published material about 
her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, which included the title, date, 
and author. 
The Petitioner rovided a screenshot of an article dated02016, titled, .__ _________ ___, 
published on the website www.lsm.lv that announces a concert on that date 
r----,_M_u_s-eu_Jm inl I Latvia by a duo clmpryed of the Petitioner and flutistD 
'----~ 
The article relates that the concert celebrates the anniversary of the I ts restoration 
and will include Latvian chamber music and works from the classical repertoire. It provides 
background information for the Petitioner] I and I I Here, this screenshot is 
about the concert rather than about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet 
this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). We also 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
7 The Petitioner previously claimed that she also meets this criterion based on articles published in the print publications 
Neatkarigas Tukuma Zinas, LAIKS, Draugas, Latvija Amerika, and Latvijas Avize, and on the websites www.delfi.lv, 
www.grani.lv, www.classical-scene.com. www.muzikaspasuale.lv, www.telegram.com, www.daugavpilszinas.lv, 
www.bostonirish.com. www.ntz.lv. www.muzeji.lv, www.kultura.daugavpils.lv, and www.schmopera.com. On appeal, 
the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the two published materials mentioned above and does not address these other 
published materials. 
4 
note the screenshot does not include the "author of the material," as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot of a video datedl 12017, from D posted on the 
website www.lsm.lv. The Petitioner claims that the video reflected an interview of her broadcasted 
on the Latvian! I Although the Petitioner provided a transcription of the video, it 
ublished material about her relating to her work. Rather, the video is about the 
new~LLU,~....J.U..lo.!..ii...u.u.LLL __ ~~~-----,-J performed by the Petitioner, pianist! l 
and.__ ________ __, coverrg comjositions by Latvian composers and works from~ 
classical repertoire and premiering on 2017, a~ I the Petitioner andLJ 
I lare quoted discussing the composition of the program. Again, articles that are not about a 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR­
RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about 
the actor). 
In addition, the record does not establish that www.lsm.lv or c=J' qualify as major trade media or 
other major media. The Petitioner provided a screenshot of an article from the website of Lsm.lv that 
provides that it "is the portal of Latvian Television and Latvian radio I I' and that 
.__ ______ __,~ "[a]n audio and video content player for Latvian Radio and Television, which 
allows passive consumption of social media content." A screenshot of a press release from the website 
www.latvijasradio.lsm.lv indicates that Latvian Radj·a is the "market leader a~,mg Latvian 
broadcasters ... according to the latest winter-spring._ ____________ _.J survey data." 
USCIS need not rely solely on self-serving assertions. 8 Even if we were to accept the information 
contained in the press release, it does not does not include the comparative circulation data necessary to 
establish that it qualifies as major media in Latvia. Further, although the record contains an article from 
the website www.iauto.lv that indicates that Ism.Iv was among the top 10 most visited news portals in 
Latvia among "the websites that participated in the..._ _____ __,study in September 2017 ," with 
381,946 monthly visitors,"9 the Petitioner did not show the significance of that one-month visitor 
statistic and how such data reflects status as a major medium. 10 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classtfication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record supports this finding. 
8 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding 
that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving asseitions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). 
9 Although the translated heading of the relevant chart indicates that this figure relates to daily visitors the translated body 
of the article states the figures relate to monthly visitors. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 
The record includes a letter from I I choir conductor and music director at the Latvian 
I and co-founder with the Petitioner of the 
1----,_l _w_h_i_c_h_s_h_e_d_e_s_c-ri_b...,es as monthly concerts at that church featur .... in_g_"_d-is-ti_n_g_m __ s-h-ed_s_o-lo-is-t-s, .... 
chamber music groups and bands," for which the Petitioner is also the artistic director. She asserts 
that the Petitioner's responsibilities as artistic director o~ I include "judging performers' talent in 
order to select them for specific performances," and claims that the Petitioner "critiques ... the actual 
performers who she selects to perform each piece." She further provides "[the Petitioner] is 
responsible for auditioning, selecting, inviting, and corresponding with all performers. She has 
ultimate discretion over which artists are selected to perform in the concert series." 
The record also includes screen shots of thel linquiry form on Google that indicates it provides 
"a short intake form" for interested individuals and ensembles to submit, which "will help I I 
curators learn about you and best place you within our concert series." The intake form requests such 
information as ensemble~ musical geme, social media links, performance bio, and preferred 
month of the 2018-2019 L__J The form indicates that "[i]f there is information requested below 
that you don't have, leave the section blank," and instructs that the completed form should be emailed 
to the Petitioner. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner has participated as "a judge of the work of others." The judging activities should be 
clearly described and well-documented in the record, and the evidence should demonstrate whose 
work and what type of work the individual judged . In this case, the Petitioner has not done so. Here, 
the evidence does not demonstrate sufficiently that in the performance of her role as artistic director the 
Petitioner actually judged the musical work of the artists in making final selections for the concert series, 
rather than, for example, reviewing qualifications as set forth in the intake sheet, or other rneral 
requests for inf°~tjon, For rample, in response to an e-mail request datedl 2019, 
from musician _ for "information about your selection process for performers for you 
concert series," the Petitioner responded onl I 2019 that "[ w ]e have a spot in March if 
you are available . . . . " Here, the record does not document sufficiently the Petitioner 's judging 
activities for l I 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. 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 (E.D. La.), ajj'd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of a one-time achievement. Further, we 
find that, although the Petitioner met the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), she did not 
establish that she meets the criteria relating to nationally or internationally recognized awards, 
published materials, or judging. We acknowledge that the Petitioner claims eligibility under one 
additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical roles with distinguished organizations or 
establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, as the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this remaining 
criterion. 11 In addition, 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). However, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her 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 she 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 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). 
7