dismissed EB-1A Case: Music Composition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2025 In Re: 36022908 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a music composer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not receive 
a one-time achievement or satisfy at least three ofthe initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
established receipt of 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). 
The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, but the Director determined the 
Petitioner fulfilled only the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the leading 
or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also 
meets the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1. Awards 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his award for "Best Original Song" at thel 
A wards monthly international film festival meets this criterion. 2 He states that "[ t ]he 
A wards is an international film competition that recognizes and celebrates excellence in independent 
filmmaking from around the world." The Petitioner further asserts that this "competition aims to 
1 In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings that he did not meet the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and therefore he has not overcome the Director's determination on this issue. We consider the 
Petitioner's prior eligibility claims not raised or contested on appeal to be abandoned. An issue not raised on appeal is 
waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-. 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 
658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings relating to other awards he previously claimed to receive or 
maintain on appeal that those awards meet this criterion. 
2 
support emergmg filmmakers by providing a platform for their work to gam visibility and 
recognition." 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes material from the I !Awards website 
listing itsl 12023 winners, 35 award categories, and rules of entry. 3 He also presents material 
promoting thel IAwards on FilmFreeway, a website filmmakers can use to submit their 
films to hundreds of film festivals globally.4 The information from both the I !Awards 
and Film Freeway websites is insufficient to show that the Petitioner's "Best Original Song" award 
garnered sufficient recognition beyond the context of the monthly film festival where it was presented. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the significance of his specific award in the field of endeavor or 
that it has received media coverage or other attention that rises to the level of national or international 
recognition. Without further evidence regarding its national or international significance in his field, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his award for "Best Original Song" at theI I 
A wards is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established he satisfies this criterion. 
2. Display 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence of the display of the alien's work in 
the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted N etflix webpages pertaining to the films,
l I and _____ accompanied by "Full Cast & Crew" information from IMDb.com, 
which lists both films' "Music by [ the Petitioner]." With the appeal, the Petitioner provides an October 
2024 letter from W-S-, film director at stating that the Petitioner 
worked "as the composer for my film[s],I I (2021) and I 1(2023). In this 
role, [the Petitioner] was responsible for composing the original music score, which significantly 
contributed to the overall atmosphere, emotional depth, and storytelling of the film[s]." W-S- further 
asserted that the Petitioner's work contributed to the films' "exhibition and reception, both at Netflix 
and across public platforms." While the Director's decision acknowledged that the Petitioner 
contributed to the musical component of the films, it concluded that his work as a musician or 
composer was not "on display" and therefore did not meet the plain language of this criterion. 5 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his musical compositions for films ( such as ____ and
I that streamed on Netflix meet this criterion. He states: 
I respectively submit that streaming platforms such as N etflix serve as prominent, 
public exhibition venues in today's digital age. Films streamed on these platforms 
reach millions of viewers globally, serving as modem equivalents to traditional theaters 
and galleries. The films I composed music for, including I I (2023), D 
3 The I IAwards' rules state that "[e]ntry fees are non-refundable," "[m]ultiple entries are allowed for each 
filmmaker," and "[y]ou can submit your work how many times you want." 
4 The FilmFreeway website includes a "Submit Now" button and lists thel !Awards' categories, rules, 
terms of entry, and user reviews. 
5 The Petitioner's appeal does not contest the Director's findings relating to the other evidence submitted for this criterion. 
3 
I 
___ (2021 ), are displayed to the public on a global scale, providing significant 
visibility for my work as a composer. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes an article, entitled "How Netflix Expanded to 190 
Countries in 7 Years," which discusses the streaming platform's global growth and market reach. He 
also provides two online reviews ofI I that were posted in July and September of 2023 on 
the film's IMDb.com webpage, one of which compliments the film's music. 
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines "display" as "to place or spread (something) for people 
to see" and "to serve as a place for displaying (something)." The Petitioner's music work for 
I and I I is an artistic component of these films that is heard but not seen or 
displayed. Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he displayed his musical contributions 
in the films consistent with the language of the regulation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We 
consider the term "display" using its ordinary, common meaning. See, e.g., Perrin v. United States, 
444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) ("A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise 
defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning .... "). 
In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that his specific work product was being displayed as the 
subject of an artistic exhibition or showcase on the N etflix streaming platform. As such, the Petitioner 
has not established he fulfills this criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The Petitioner meets the published material and leading or critical role criteria, but he has not 
established he satisfies the criteria relating to awards and display. Because the Petitioner's inability 
to meet three of the initial criteria is dispositive of his appeal, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 1119-20. We therefore reserve this issue. 6 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the 
statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability designation 
is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 
2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) 
( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). 
See also Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 
(D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published 
theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) ( stating that"[ c ]ourts have 
found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in 
Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
4 
significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
5