dismissed EB-1A Case: Music Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-M-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an artist and repertoire (A&R) executive, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she fulfills at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of G-M-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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 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 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner fas working as senior director for A&R atl I a 
label of I 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the original contributions and leading 
or critical role criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii), respectively. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that she also meets the commercial successes in the performing arts criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Upon review, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
2 
Matter of G-M-M-
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner indicated that she has contributed original acts to the music industry, stating: 
[W]ithout [the Petitioner's] identifying eyle, visirn and guidance, the music industry 
would not have artists such asl I I to name a few, 
as we know them today. It is her original thought, her original interactions, her original 
visions, work sessions, her pep talks, and overall actions etc. that spawned these 
original acts and, but for her actions, they would not be part of the industry as we know 
them. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted information about musicians she claims to 
have developed and various letters of support discussing her work in the music industry. In order to 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she 
made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that her particular contributions have widely influenced the field, have 
remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. As 
discussed below, the 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. 
The record includes letters from the Petitioner's professional associates asserting that she has made 
original contributions in the music industry. 1 For instance) ,I a senior executive for 
I I an entertainment agency that represents songwriters, producers, 
artists, mixers, and engineers, indicated that the Petitioner "identified the raw talent in and signed 
'1======.---_along with overseeing successful campaigns for Grammy Nominated I I I and British pop sensation! 1"2 He further stated that "those original contributions 
to the industry are because of [ the Petitioner]." Similarly J l partner atl I I l, a law firm representing music industry clients, contended that the Petitioner 
has "brought original contributions to the music business, finding and contributing to the development 
of several recording artists. She has worked with and made meaningful contributions to the careers of 
I 11 ~ I 11 11 I and several others." The 
evidence, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the success of the aforementioned artists was 
attributable to the Petitioner's A&R role, nor does the record show that her specific work with them 
rises to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's work withl 11 l Senior Partner atl I I I a law firm that represents talent in the sports and entertainment industries, stated that 
1 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 The record does not include letters of support rrom these four music artists discussing the Petitioner's impact on their 
careers or other corroborating evidence to supp01t the references' claims that her work with these artists cons~ 
contributions of major significance in the field. For example, while the record contains various media articles aboutl__J 
and her interactions with others in the recording industry, these aiticles do not mention the Petitioner or her effect on 
I I development as a performing artisj' Reyrdless, the aiticles and other evidence in the record are insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's work with was of major significance in the field. 
3 
Matter of G-M-M-
the Petitioner "identified, signed and developed! Her early work activated his path to 
stardom, and the music industry will never be the same. I cannot overstate the impact [the Petitioner] 
had onl I career, and ultimately the impact that had on the industry as a whole." While the 
Petitioner provided information about I I from articles in Billboard, Wall Street Journal, 
Rolling Stone, Variety, Esquire, and Wikipedia, these articles do not mention the Petitioner or her 
~n his · reer. For exam le, the article in Wikipedia states: "After I I sister §m 
~ pla ed demo for the A&R at I I, 
summoned to..______,,----,-_ _.' This article further indicated that songwriter and producer 
I l"introduced to his future A&R manager at.___ _______ ~~-___.' The 
record does not include sufficient information or evidence to show that the Petitioner's work with D 
~ constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
With res ect to the Petitioner's involvement with.___ _____ ____., I I president of 
~--.======'....:.:a_rroducer and songwriter management com,any, indicated that the Petitioner 
managed~----~ while working tori J. He asserted that the Petitioner 
oversaw and facilitated "the songwriting sessions and the release campaign for I I album 
~------~ which debuted the Billboard chart at #3 and achieved Platinum status, and a 
Grammy Nomination." The record includes articles aboutl I in Daily Mail, Billboard, 
and Wikipedia, but they do not mention the Petitioner or her work on the aforementioned album. 
Nonetheless, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work on that album 
rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In regard to the Petitioner's management of I 11 I, a music artist and 
songwriter, stated that the Petitioner's leadership helped I I break "onto the [United Kingdom] 
market with huge impact and success, topping the charts and becoming the biggest new British pop 
sensation of that time." Additionally, she indicated: "[The Petitioner] reco[nize
1 
that my songwriting 
style would ble a per
1
ect fit for the sound and direction that she was guiding towards .... I ended 
up becoming main writing partner and landed 3 songs on her debut album, which debuted at 
#2 on the UK Album Chart." While I I asserted that the Petitioner's management 
helped! I become successful and facilitated their songwriting partnership, the record does not 
show that the Petitioner's guidance of I land work on her debut album represent contributions 
of major significance in the field. 
The references' statements and articles relating to the aforementioned artists are not sufficient to show 
that the Petitioner's specific A&R work has widely influenced the recording industry or has otherwise 
risen to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that her particular work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the 
field, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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). 
The evidence shows that as senior director for A&R au I the Petitioner has performed 
in a critical role for a distinguished organization. Accordingly, the record supports the Director's 
finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
4 
Matter of G-M-M-
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 contends that she "has originated, developed and contributed original artistic acts to the 
music industry" and that the success of these acts "must be attributed to [ the Petitioner] because she 
is the genesis of it." In his letter of support,! btated: 
[The Petitioner and I worked closel to ether with 
songs: 
to create the ori inal 
.__ ____ ___. which formed their debut record '.__ ______ ~ "' The record is 
certified 4 x Platinum, it spent over a year in the ARIA [ Australian Recording Industry 
Association] Albums Chart, reached #2 on the ARIA album chart, and was nominated 
for 3 x ARIA A wards. [The Petitioner] was instrumental in the launch of their career 
in America and internationally. 
In ~d===: letter indicated that he and the Petitioner "are working together on emerging 
artist c= I and that the Petitioner "has been instrumental in developing I I as a 
songwriter." He further noted that the Petitioner "strategically formulates and creates the session 
collaborations forl I to be able to write incredible material that result in son cuts and releases 
with major recording artists" such as.__ _____ ___, I ,I and I I 
I ~lso asserted that "[ w ]ithout the Petitioner's work, the smash hit '~-~ written by 
I I and released by pop groupl J would not have happened. It has achieved massive 
commercial success, double platinum status, [and] was a top 5 single" in the United Kingdom. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of the Petitioner's commercial success, 
"as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales." Moreover, the 
evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect a petitioner's commercial 
successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing arts. 3 Here, the record does 
not include a tracklist or credits for I I or 1 t identifying the Petitioner as 
having created or substantially contributed to these recordings. Nor is the evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate that the commercial successes of the above artists are mostly attributable to the Petitioner 
rather than their own musical talent. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a letter froml l partner atl I 
"a global talent agency based id I" He indicates that he has "been working withl I 
since [the Petitioner] brought them to my attention in 2010." I I further explains that he 
is "responsible for procuring their shows and privy to their live touring earnings, and can attest to the 
fact that in 2015 they earned $8,126,060. In 2016 they earned $6,824,953 and in 2017 they earned 
$4
1
879,250 in touring alone." Additionally, he contends that the Petitioner "is integrally responsible 
for! I success as she played a creative and pivotal role in discovering, pac
1
agingj and 
1
makingl 
the group what it is today." While the record includes a letter of support from and 
3 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 ADJJ-14 11-12 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/po !icy-memoranda. 
5 
Matter of G-M-M-
~-~!expressing gratitude to the Petitioner for helping to launch their music careers, the evidence is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that their 2015-2017 tour earnings are attributable to the Petitioner's 
specific work. Instead, ~---------~ tour earnings are attributable to their music 
performances and reflect their commercial successes. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not 
established that she satisfies this 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 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. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions 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 
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 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 and recognition of her A&R work are indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that they are 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 )(1 )(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 )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification 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. In visa petition proceedings, 
6 
Matter of G-M-M-
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of G-M-M-, ID# 2990891 (AAO June 5, 2019) 
7