dismissed EB-1A Case: Music Production And Promotion

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 03, 2024 In Re: 33947609 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a producer and promoter of musical events, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(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 the classification's initial evidentiary requirements. The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1)(A) 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-part analysis. 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 they 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 they are 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner claimed to meet six of the ten evidentiary criteria: receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally known awards, participating as a judge of the work of others, making 
original contributions of major significance in her field, authorship of scholarly articles, display of her 
work in artistic exhibitions, and performing in a leading or critical role for organizations with 
distinguished reputations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv)-(viii). The Director concluded that the 
evidence provided only satisfied the judging criterion and denied the petition accordingly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a personal statement and documentation regarding the criteria for 
lesser nationally or internationally known awards, majorly significant original contributions, and 
display of her work at artistic exhibitions. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (vii), respectively. Since 
the appeal does not challenge the Director's findings regarding 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), authorship 
of scholarly articles, or 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), performing in a leading or critical role, we 
consider these issues to be 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)). We will consider the Petitioner's 
remaining claims below. 
A. Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized A wards or Prizes for Excellence in the 
Field of Endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she has received two nationally or internationally recognized 
awards: a certificate of recognition from the mayor ofl l Texas, and a I I award. 
Upon review, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for this criterion. 
To assess whether an award is nationally or internationally recognized as reflecting excellence in a 
person's field, we consider factors including the criteria used to grant the award, the number of 
awardees, any limitations on who may compete, and other evidence of the award's significance in the 
field of endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
Here, we first note that the certificate from the mayor ofl Idoes not appear to be an award for 
excellence in the Petitioner's field of concert production and promotion. The provided certificate 
states that the Petitioner has "added to the diverse array of music that makes I I unique" and 
2 
thanks her "for her work in enhancing the diversity of I I through Latin American music 
initiatives." The record therefore indicates that the award is granted for contributions to the 
community in I I rather than for excellence in the field of concert production. 
Secondly, the record does not contain documentation showing to what extent, if any, a certificate of 
appreciation from the mayor ofl Iis recognized outside ofl I The Petitioner contends 
on appeal that "while a mayor's award recognition is typically regional," in her case, "the award 
represents a recognition of a person who makes a significant contribution to an entire community," 
and that "the Hispanic culture represents the second largest in the United States." However, the plain 
language of the regulation requires the award in question to be nationally recognized, and the award 
certificate only mentions the Petitioner's contributions within the city ofl I 
Similarly, while the Petitioner points out that the mayor ofl lhas granted similar recognition to 
internationally famous recipients such asl there is no evidence in the record showing 
that I Imayoral certificates of appreciation have a national or international level of fame. An 
award' s recognition level is not measured by the preexisting recognition level of its awardees, but by 
whether it is nationally or internationally acknowledged as reflecting excellence in a person's field of 
endeavor. The Petitioner has provided no documentation showing that a certificate of appreciation 
from the mayor ofl Iis acknowledged beyond the awarding entity. 
Finally, petitioners must establish eligibility for the requested classification at the time their benefit 
request is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In this instance, the underlying visa petition was filed in 
December 2023. The certificate awarding the I I to the Petitioner states that it was granted 
in March 2024. As such, it cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence showing her receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
B. Display of the Petitioner's Work in the Field at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits promotional posters and venue licensing agreements regarding 
various concerts she produced and contends that each of these events was a display of her work in an 
artistic showcase. However, the record does not indicate that any of the concerts in question constituted 
an exhibition or showcase of the Petitioner's work. 
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a showcase as an occasion, setting, or medium for exhibiting 
something, and an exhibition as a public showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic 
skill) 1. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) specifically requires any qualifying exhibition 
or showcase to be artistic in nature - that is, a public showing of art. It also requires the work on 
display to be the person's own work product in their field. Id., see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(l). Here, while the Petitioner was involved in organizing concerts which qualify as 
artistic showcases, her work product was not the art that was on public display. There is no indication 
in the record that anything the Petitioner created as a work product, such as emails or contracts, was 
1 Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/. 
3 
seen, heard, or otherwise publicly exhibited at any of the concerts she organized: the work product 
being displayed was that of the performers, production designers, and other artistic staff. She therefore 
has not established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The extraordinary ability classification requires petitioners to meet at least three of the initial 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner here only met one criterion in her 
underlying petition, and therefore cannot meet three criteria regardless of whether she qualifies under 
the major contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We therefore need not reach this issue 
and will reserve it. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). The petition will remain 
denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4