dismissed EB-1A Case: Music And Vocal Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 8, 2024 In Re: 32717370 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a musician and vocal artist who 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that although the record established that the Petitioner met at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria, she did not merit a favorable determination in a final merits analysis. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, a petitioner can demonstrate international 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 criteria 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 move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) ( discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has studied the arts and in 2023 earned her foreign bachelor's degree in the field of art 
and singing. Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed she met five regulatory criteria. The Director 
decided that the Petitioner satisfied three criteria relating to published material, authorship of scholarly 
articles, and display of her work but that she had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes or 
awards, or original contributions. The Director further decided that when considering all her evidence 
and claims, she did not demonstrate she enjoyed sustained acclaim or that her achievements reflect 
she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the top of her field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that she meets the evidentiary criteria relating to prizes or awards and original contributions, 
but she does not contest the Director's final merits determination. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination with the 
added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. 
INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below 
has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Antonio v. 
Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 
holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
As it relates to the Petitioner's lesser awards, when discussing two of the submitted awards the Director 
noted the supporting evidence (news articles) did not establish those accolades received national or 
international recognition as the regulation requires. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The Director 
indicated the Petitioner did not show that evidence was a form of major media, which might convey 
the requisite level of recognition in the field. The Director also noted some evidentiary deficiencies 
with the supporting material (the author's name was absent) and decided that decreased the value of 
those items. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues no requirement exists in USCIS' regulations or case law stating that 
she must submit press articles about her awards and that each press article must identify an author of 
the article. We agree with the Petitioner's statement that under the prizes or awards criterion, these 
elements are not compulsory. But the Director didn't mandate press articles, nor did they reject them 
because they lacked an author. After the Petitioner submitted articles as her supporting evidence, the 
2 
Director merely indicated that press coverage was one method to illustrate a prize or award is 
nationally or internationally recognized, and they are permitted to evaluate the quality of the evidence 
to decide the evidentiary weight each type of material should gamer. Ultimately, to determine whether 
a party has established eligibility for a requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
Director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility. 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. It appears this is what the Director did here. 
Additionally, within the appeal the Petitioner refers to an exhibit containing several pieces of evidence 
in their original filing without explaining what that evidence consists of, how it demonstrates she might 
satisfy this criterion's requirements, or how the Director might have erred in their decision. In visa 
petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Commensurate with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of 
proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Filing parties 
should not generally refer to a grouping of evidence without notifying the appellate body of the specific 
documentation that corroborates their claims within that material, as doing so places an undue burden 
on the appellate body to search through the documentation without the aid of the filing party's 
knowledge. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Toquero v. 
INS, 956 F .2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)); Nazakat v. INS, 981 F .2d 1146, 1148 ( I 0th Cir. 1992). 
Regarding the scholarships the Petitioner received, the Director did not consider the scholarships as 
qualifying under this criterion. The Director indicated that academic study is not a field of endeavor 
and is instead training for a future field of endeavor. They also determined these were limited to other 
students, and counted them out of the running as sufficient evidence. The USCIS Policy Manual 
recognizes it is possible for some scholastic awards to qualify under the awards criterion provided they 
are not limited to persons within a single locality, employer, or school but "an award open to members 
of a well-known national institution (including an Rl or R2 doctoral university[]) or professional 
organization may be nationally recognized." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policyrnanual. The relevant factor is whether the filing party shows the award 
is recognized in the field at a national or an international level. Id. 
The material the Petitioner offered to demonstrate the scholarships were at least nationally recognized 
were press articles about the foundation that issued the scholarship. But the Petitioner only offered 
the actual articles and what was lacking was material showing those news outlets were a form of major 
media or a prominent national-level news source. This fell short of the Petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate how the field views the scholarships or why the field considers the scholarships as 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Here, even though we are 
adopting and affirming the Director's determination under the prizes or awards criterion, we have also 
addressed some of the Petitioner's arguments raised in the appeal, but explained why we continue to 
agree with the Director. 
Because the Petitioner satisfied at least three regulatory criteria, the Director then evaluated whether 
she had demonstrated her sustained national or international acclaim, that she was one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements had been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, the Director analyzes the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and weighs the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are 
3 
sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20). See 
also 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2(B)(2) (stating that USCIS officers then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
The Director's final merits determination evaluated the Petitioner's achievements and noted specific 
deficiencies relating to her awards, letters of support about her work, her scholarly articles, and her 
performances. But on appeal, the Petitioner does not contest any of the Director's findings relating to 
those broad categories and instead delivers a harangue about the propriety of USCIS performing a 
final merits determination. The brief then focuses the Petitioner's arguments on individual criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) instead of the actual basis for the Director's denial in the final 
merits, then closes vaguely asserting she has met the classification's requirements. 
The Petitioner's appeal brief is unresponsive to and has not adequately addressed the shortcomings 
the Director noted in the denial's final merits determination portion. Such uncontested issues are 
considered waived or forfeited on appeal and we will not address issues that are not adequately briefed. 
Matter of F-C-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 788, 789 n.3, 791 n.6 (BIA 2024) (finding issues not challenged on 
appeal are waived). Because the brief does not address the specific reasons for the Director's denial, 
she has not demonstrated her sustained national or international acclaim and that she is one of the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
Even if this was not the case, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for this 
classification. 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 that goal. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
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. 
4