dismissed EB-1A Case: Music Production

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-P-V-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 26, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALI?N WORKER 
The Petitioner, a music producer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . 
This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which 
necessitates either 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that meet at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). While the Director 
found that the Petitioner met the leading and critical role criterion and the commercial successes 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (x), he concluded that the Petitioner did not present 
evidence meeting an additional criterion. 
The matter is before us on appeal.2 In support of his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
materials, and maintains that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet at least three of 
the ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He also states that he has 
demonstrated his extraordinary ability in the musical field as a "producer and artist." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
1 In his initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that he was a music "producer, promotor , arranger and performer. " 
2 After the Director denied the petition , but before the Petitioner filed this appeal , he submitted a second immigrant 
petition , seeking an extraordinary ability classification in the arts This decision relates only to the 
Petitioner's appeal of his first petition 
Matter of P-P- V-
Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate his sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R.' § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record does not include "evidence of a one-time achievement." The Petitioner, however, has 
met the initial evidence requirements by presenting materials satisfying at least three of the ten types 
of documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Notwithstanding this finding, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or 
international acclaim and that the field has recognized his achievements. Accordingly, he has not 
established his eligibility for the classification. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-P-V-
A. One-Time Achievement 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) , a petttloner, as initial evidence, may present 
confirmation of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. The 
Petitioner submitted a certificate from the verifying that he served as a producer for 
his father's album, which received a nomination in the 
category.3 The Petitioner also produced his father 's earlier album, 
which also garnered a nomination in the same category. While the Petitioner 
acknowledged that neither album ultimately won a he stated that each 
nomination qualified as a one-time achievement in the arts under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The plain language of the regulation requires "evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major , 
international recognized award)." Nomination for an award reflects that the nominee is in the 
running for the recognition and that he has a chance of receiving the award. According to a letter 
from the president and chief executive officer of the 
the selection process includes "entering , 
screening, nomination and 2 rounds of voting." website noted that names of the 
winners remain unknown until they "are revealed during the telecast." Without his 
actual receipt of a the Petitioner has not offered "evidence of a one-time 
achievement" as defined by the regulation. Significantly, the Petitioner has not presented any legal 
authority in support of his position that a nomination , without actual receipt of an award, meets the 
plain language requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria pertaining to performing a leading and 
critical role, and commercial successes in the performing arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) , (x). 
The record includes evidence relating to these criteria. For example , the Petitioner, along with a 
team of musicians, produced The Petitioner was in charge of production and musical 
direction. His father stated that the Petitioner contributed to the record ' s modem sound. 
received a nomination and some media attention. The documentation 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization that 
has a distinguished reputation. 4 He thus satisfies the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner offered evidence of the commercial successes of his work. According to 
of the Petitioner produced profitable tours. presented a 
spreadsheet entitled indicating that the multi-country tour had a gross value of over 
$10 million. This figure, however, assumes that every performance was a sold-out one. The record 
3 The Petitioner 's father is 
4 The statutory definition for an "organization " includes "a group of persons, whether or not incorporated , pennanently 
or temporarily associated together with joint action on any subject or subjects." Section 101(a)(28) ofthe Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(28). The team that created thus constituted an organization under the Act. 
3 
(b)(6)
I ~ 
Matter of P-P- V-
does not specify if such was the case. Regardless, in light of the documentation, we will not disturb 
the Director's finding that the Petitioner has filed proof of commercial successes in the performing 
arts, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
In addition, the Petitioner meets the display at artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). According to a "producer must organize the creation 
of entirely new arrangements of songs" for live performances, and he must then "select a tour band 
to play with the artist :in the performances. " stated that the Petitioner "designed [a 
20 12] tour around a motif of loneliness, and chose songs that would help to communicate the 
alienation of the performer." He further noted that the Petitioner "chose to take the production in a 
minimalistic direction that would highlight the isolation of the artist." the president of 
indicated that during the tour, the Petitioner was responsible for 
scenography and stage design. and letters, along with other evidence, 
verified that the Petitioner took charge of the theme, musical · arrangements, and stage design of at 
least one tour. The performances during the tour, thus, constituted display of the Petitioner's work 
in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner satisfies the criterion under 8 C.F.R. §' 
204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
While the Petitioner has shown that he meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 
8 C.F.R .. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), he has not demonstrated his eligibility for the extraordinary ability 
classification. Specifically, as discussed below, he has not established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, his national or international acclaim and that the field recognizes his achievements. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In the final merits determination, we consider the totality of the record to determine if a petitioner has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim,5 and his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation,6 
making him one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. If so, he 
has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for visa classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." 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. 
The documents we consider in the final merits analysis may include achievements that were not directly 
applicable to one of the criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and comparable evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Also, a petitioner may request that submissions that do not meet any of 
5 "Sustained" means to support or maintain, especially over a long period. Black's Law Dictionary 1585 (9th ed. 2009). 
Therefore, the foreign national must have maintained the national or international acclaim over a period of time through 
the date of filing to demonstrate his eligibility. 
6 While the statute requires extensive documentation, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of the filings 
alone but by their quality . Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
We "examine each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value, and credibility , both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence. " Jd. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-P-V-
the enumerated criteria, and do not qualify as comparable, be considered within a final merits analysis. 
In a final merits analysis, we first discuss and analyze the foreign national's accomplishments to provide 
a framework to perform an overall, final determination. We then weigh all of the filings together to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the respective 
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. 
At the time the Petitioner filed the petition, he was a student at the in 
MA, pursuing a professional diploma in music. A service contract showed that he worked for 
a business located in Spain, providing services in "musical production consultancy 
and management of musical productions and organization of musical events." He served as an album 
producer for two musicians: his father and the chairperson and chief 
executive officer of and other documentation, confirmed that the 
Petitioner produced the and 
albums. A certificate from the also noted that he produced which 
garnered a nomination in the category. In addition, the Petitioner 
had been involved in live events and international tours. stated that the 
Petitioner was also a manager at 
of studio operations for 
a recording studio in 
projects. 
Spain, and was in charge 
While the Petitioner has illustrated that as a musical producer, he has received recognition within his 
circle of collaborators and associates, he has not demonstrated his sustained national or international 
acclaim or established his status as one of the small percentage who is at the top of his field. The 
references praised the Petitioner's creativity, abilities and professionalism, but they did not sufficiently 
show his eligibility for this classification. For example, a senior vice president of 
region at stated that the Petitioner "exemplifies the modem music producer, an 
individual with the significant creative and managerial skills to guide the production of popular 
records." provided that the Petitioner has the "ability to balance the multi-faceted 
responsibilities of a producer" and is "a member of a community of successful producers in Spain." 
Although letter showed that the Petitioner is an effective producer, who has achieved 
some level of success, it did not support a finding that he has reached the very top of the field as a music 
producer. Neither the letter nor other documentation substantiated opinion that the 
Petitioner is "an extraordinary producer" who qualifies for the classification. His letter did not compare 
the Petitioner to others in the field, or demonstrate that the Petitioner's recognition in the field was at a 
level indicative of his national or international acclaim. Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). In addition, USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory statements. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-P- V-
Similarly, a number of the references, with whom the Petitioner had c~llaborated, commented on the 
Petitioner's qualifications to be a musical producer, but did not point to specific evidence demonstrating 
his sustained national or international acclaim. indicated that the Petitioner is "absolutely 
qualified to work as a music producer in the US." the director of 
in Spain, stated that the Petitioner was "a world class music producer, capable of managing any 
major production, either local or international." the musical director of 
in Spain, provided that the Petitioner was "highly qualified to produce music in a 
variety of styles from pop to jazz." the founder, music director and recording 
producer of the said that the Petitioner is of "extraordinary 
professionalism" and is "highly qualified to produce music of the highest international level." These 
letters, and other submitted materials, illustrated that people who have worked with the Petitioner 
hold a 
high opinion of his professionalism and abilities. The record, however, lacks sufficient documentation 
verifying that in the field of countless music producers, the Petitioner has risen to its highest echelon. 
Some of the references made unsubstantiated declarations. For example, indicated that the 
Petitioner's work has "had a notorious impact in the industry." however, did not specify 
how the Petitioner had influenced the field, or whether the impact was at 
such a high level that it would 
supports a finding that the Petitioner has reached the very top of his field amongst all other music 
producers. Similarly, provided that the Petitioner was "one of the most talented young 
producers at the moment in Spain, having the extraordinary ability to produce recordings of the highest 
level of exigency either in Spain or abroad." did not offer information on other producers in 
Spain or point to specific evidence confirming that the Petitioner is a top music producer in Spain. 
the president of called the Petitioner "an internationally acclaimed music 
producer." however, presented nothing to indicate that the Petitioner is well recognized 
beyond those who have worked or collaborated with him. As noted, unsupported statements from the 
references that repeat the statutory or regulatory language do not establish a petitioner's eligibility. See 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd, 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5; 1756. Inc., 
745 F. Supp. at 17. 
Significantly, the Petitioner has not received any significant awards within the music industry or 
garnered extensive media coverage nationally or internationally. Two of the albums that the Petitioner 
worked on received nominations. The Petitioner, however, has not sho\\'Il that either 
record actually won an award of national or international recognition. While 
nominations might illustrate that the field has taken notice of his work, the Petitioner has not established 
that the achievement was indicative of his extraordinary ability in a field of music producers. 
According to some reference letters, the Petitioner has the potential to achieve great success in his field. 
For example, stated that the Petitioner "will certainly be an asset to the music community." 
an executive vice president of 
indicated that the Petitioner's "presence in the Music community will not only benefit 
work, but will be a huge asset to the music industry as a whole." provided 
that "[i]f granted permission to work in the United States, ... [the Petitioner] will make significant 
contributions to [the American] culture and economy." To qualify for this classification, the Petitioner 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-P- V-
must present documentation showing that he has already attained sustained national or international 
acclaim. His potential to reach the top of the field is insufficient to demonstrate eligibility. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained national or international acclaim as a mustc 
producer. The Petitioner's father is a musician with more than years of experience, who has released 
at least albums. The Petitioner produced three of his father's albums: 
and and was involved with their promotional tours. While these facts 
illustrate that the Petitioner is effective and skillful as a music producer, they do not establish the 
Petitioner's status as a top music producer in the field. 
Notably, the record lacks evidence showing that people outside of the Petitioner's circle of collaborators 
and associates recognized him as a top music producer in the field. While the Petitioner received some 
media attention, its limited nature is insufficient to demonstrate his national or international acclaim. 
The record includes an article from that discussed the Petitioner's work at 
and his development of album, In his initial filing, the 
Petitioner maintained that was "a leading Spanish music industry publication." He, 
however, did not submit materials substantiating this statement Articles posted on 
and the 
website mentioned the Petitioner once, indicating that he produced s 
with a modem sound. Similarly, pieces posted on and 
focused on the Petitioner's father's music and included a brief discussion 
of the Petitioner's involvement in the album. An article on referred to 
the Petitioner once, confirming that he produced The limited media coverage on 
the Petitioner - including one article about him and other articles mentioning him in passing - is not 
indicative of his top music producer status in the field. 
The record has some financial information on the tours that the Petitioner produced . 
stated that the Petitioner "organized successful tours in the past and his ability to excel in this area of the 
producing world is well documented." While the letter indicated that the tours were commercial 
successes, neither nor the Petitioner presented sufficient materials 
demonstrating the level 
of the successes. offered a chart, entitled reflecting that the gross value of a 
tour was over $10 million. This figure assumed that each performance filled every seat in a venue. The 
Petitioner has not submitted information on the number of tickets actually sold per show or the expenses 
of the tour. Without additional documentation, the Petitioner has not illustrated the level of the 
commercial successes or that the magnitude of the successes is indicative of his sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner also produced the album, The record lacks evidence relating to 
album sales, if the record achieved commercial successes or garnered recognition in the field. Without 
additional materials, the Petitioner's involvement in this album is insufficient to show his national or 
international acclaim in the field. 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-P-V-
Finally, evidence relating to the Petitioner's income does not verify that he is a music producer of 
extraordinary ability. According to documents from his employer, for January 2015, the 
Petitioner's gross income was €3,813.14, which was approximately $4,301; and his income after 
deductions was €2,028.02, which was approximately $2,287.7 The Petitioner has not presented 
materials reflecting that his earnings illustrated his national or international acclaim or his status of 
being at the very top of the field. 
In this case, the Petitioner's accomplishments in the aggregate include his academic pursuit, 
professional and employment experience, involvement in album and Jour productions, contribution to 
two nominated records, and production of These achievements 
confirm that he is a productive and skillful music producer who has gained the respect of his circle of 
colleagues, and garnered some attention in the field. They do not, however, demonstrate that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that the field has recognized his achievements. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, the full measure of the Petitioner's accomplishments, including his 
academic pursuit, professional experience, production ability and activities, the level of his national or 
international acclaim, and the extent the field has recognized his achievements, are not indicative of a 
record of sustained acclaim. Also, he has not submitted extensive documentation exhibiting that he has 
attained a level of expertise placing him among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that he has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. The documentation does not prove that the Petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. The Petitioner, 
therefore, has not estabiished eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may 
not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner to show 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). The Petitioner in this case has not established that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
7 https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/, accessed on July 19, 2016, and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings. 
8 
Matter of P-P- V-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-P-V-, ID# 17866 (AAO Aug. 26, 2016) 
( 
9