dismissed EB-1A Case: Singing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 5, 2023 In Re: 26293166 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a singer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 that although the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, she did not show her sustained national 
or international acclaim and demonstrate she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. In addition, the Director determined the Petitioner did not establish her intent to continue to 
work in her area of extraordinary ability in the United States. 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)(l)(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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established she 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). The Director determined the Petitioner met three of the claimed evidentiary criteria relating to 
published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and display at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not show she garnered 
sustained national or international acclaim and her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise, demonstrating she is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues she satisfies additional criteria, and her evidence in the aggregate 
establishes her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Because the Petitioner has already 
shown she fulfills the minimum requirement of at least three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of 
the evidence based on the documentation presented to the Director in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate 
whether she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or 
1 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
international acclaim, 2 she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and 
her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze an individual's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20.3 In this matter, we determine the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's earlier background, according to the initial cover letter: 
. . . In 1987, she entered music school named after I I and 
graduated in 1994, the class of violin. In 1986 she sang in 1 I Junior Ensemble. 
From 1995 to 1997 she was a singer at the I /band. From 1997 to 2003, [the 
Petitioner] worked as a vocalist at the I _Theater of Armenia, where she 
worked as a vocal teacher from 2001 to 2002. 
In 2005, [the Petitioner] entered the~--------------~and 
graduated in 2009 receiving bachelor's degree in in [sic] the field of Vocal Art, Variety­
Jazz Singing. In 2010, [the Petitioner] received master's degree froml I 
~---------~in Musical Art, Singing-Variety-Jazz Singing. The same 
~started her postgraduate studies again at the~-----------~ 
L___J and graduated with honors in 2012. [The Petitioner] received her Postgraduate 
Certificate on September 28, 2012, during her solo concert atl !Sports 
and Concerts Complex i~ !Armenia .... Since 2014, [the Petitioner] works 
as a Lecturer at Jazz and Pop Department of Vocal-Theory F acuity ofl I 
As discussed farther below, the Petitioner has garnered awards, received media coverage, served on 
panels for music contests, been praised by others in the field, and performed at concert venues while 
earning income from her shows. However, in considering the totality of the evidence, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that her achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Furthermore, the 
Petitioner has not shown that she has risen to that small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented a career that meets this 
very high standard. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l) (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and providing Black's 
Law Dictiona,y's definition of"sustain" is "to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time ... To persist in 
making (an effort) over a long period of time"). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition in its 
entirety to determine eligibility according to the standard- sustained national or international acclaim and the achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor). 
3 
The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting her receipt of about two dozen awards from 2003 to 2019. 
Although the awards may show some recognition of her work, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how 
they indicate that she "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While the Petitioner submitted accompanying articles 
reporting on the winners, the Petitioner did not establish that she received awards indicative of the 
upper echelon in the field. Rather, based on the documentation, the majority of the awards were 
recently established or created, such as her receipt of the "Revelation of the Year" and "Hit of the 
Year" at the First National Music Awards in I I Armenia. In fact, according to the article from 
aravot.am, "almost all the participants were given something, probably not to celebrate the New Year 
offended." Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her awards place her among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered about three dozen articles covering 2006 - 2018. 
Again, while the published material indicates some attention to her and her work, the Petitioner did 
not establish that such reporting is consistent with a level of success consistent with being among "that 
small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not show how her limited media coverage, averaging about 2 - 3 
articles per year, compares to other singers among the very top of the field. Here, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how her press coverage reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the field" or a "very 
high standard ... to present more extensive documentation than that required." See H.R. Rep. No. at 
59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
As it pertains to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the 
significance of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required 
extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The 
Petitioner presented evidence showing she participated on the jury for ~--------~ on 
Armenia TV, as well as a judge for three student festivals/contests. Here, the Petitioner's judging 
experience involves evaluating the work of amateurs and aspiring singers rather than nationally or 
internationally renowned artists. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that these evaluations 
contribute to a finding that she has a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. She did not show, for example, how her experience in evaluating aspiring singers and 
students compares to others at the very top of the field. Without evidence that sets her apart from 
others in the field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of reviewing or judging 
recognized, acclaimed singers or experts in her field, the Petitioner has not shown that her judging 
experience places her among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
We note here that the Petitioner provided recommendation letters praising her for her talents, skills, 
and abilities. For instance,~------~opined on the Petitioner's "unique velvety voice and 
exceptional melismatic singing." Although the letters commend the Petitioner on her songs, they do 
not contain sufficient information and explanation to show that she is viewed by the overall field, 
rather than by a solicited few, as being among the upper echelon or that she is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Further, the letters do not establish that she has 
4 
made impactfol or influential contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work 
in the field, garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 
59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
As it relates to the display of her work the Petitioner submitted screenshots and___._.____._____, 
performing at various venues, such as California· 
Sports and Concerts Complex in,_____. Armenia; and ~----------~ France. 
Although the Petitioner established that she exhibited her work on television and at concerts, festivals, 
and other music venues, simply displaying one's work, however, does not automatically place one at 
the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate the significance of her performances, such as they brought wide praise from 
critics, drew notable crowds, raised attendance, or was responsible for the success of standings of the 
events. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. Moreover, regarding her commercial successes, while the 
Petitioner ointed out that 1,233 seats were sold out of 1,381 seats at her 2007 concert at th~ 
1-----~------' California and she sold out 2,041 seats at her 2012 concert at the l..==J 
,_____ ~
Sports and Concerts Complex in I I Armenia, the Petitioner did not establish that 
her ticket sales place her among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not compare her box office receipts or ticket sales to others among the very top of the 
field. Here, the Petitioner's evidence does not distinguish herself from others in the field or shows a 
career of acclaimed work in the field. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. In addition, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that her work garnered a level of attention or was regularly seen at highly reputable 
venues consistent with being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting that she earned approximately $4,200 for a two­
hour concert. However, the Petitioner did not establish that she commanded earnings commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner 
did not show that her wages are tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). She did not demonstrate, for example, 
how her salary compared to others at the very top of her field, or that she received notoriety or attention 
based on her earnings separating herself from others in the field or placing her in the upper echelon. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, 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. Price, 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 ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
l 9-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 
5 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). In this case, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of her 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. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59; see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for 
the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 4 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 As the Petitioner has not established her extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. we need not 
consider whether she will continue to work her area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1 )( A )(ii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we decline to reach and hereby reserve this issue. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where 
applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
6