remanded EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 8195912 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a singer and songwriter, seeks classification as an alien 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). In addition, he found that the Petitioner had not 
established that be seeks to enter the United States to continue working as a singer and songwriter. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter to the Director for the entry of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) 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 bas 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 his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient 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). 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 
As noted, the Petitioner is a singer and songwriter. Because he has not indicated or established that 
he has received 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 meet the requirements of four criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
In his decision, the Director analyzed the evidence submitted under only three of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria, excluding analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's asserted 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts his claim to 
having received two lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards under the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), and refers to evidence he submitted with the petition, as well as in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). We note that while the Petitioner claimed he met this 
criterion in letters included with both submissions, the Director does not appear to have evaluated the 
evidence in making his decision. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the Director so that he may 
do so in his new decision. 
2 
In discussing the criteria relating to published material about the Petitioner, and his participation as a 
judge of the work of others in his field, the Director focused, in part, on the translations of material 
from Chinese to English, concluding that the accompanying translator certifications did not meet the 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). That regulation requires that all foreign language documents 
be accompanied by a foll English language translation, as well as the translator's certification of their 
competence and that the translation is complete and accurate. Specifically, the Director indicated that 
the certifications do not state that the translations are "complete" as required. On review, we note that 
the certifications state that the translations are "completed, true and accurate," and otherwise meet the 
regulatory requirements. In addition, there is no indication that the English translations do not include 
the complete text of the original documents in Chinese. We therefore find that the translation 
certifications comply with the regulatory requirements, and remand for the Director to consider the 
translated documents in his evaluation of the corresponding criteria. In addition, the Director should 
evaluate new evidence the Petitioner submitted on appeal as it relates to these two criteria. 
Further, regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the 
Director erred in overlooking his thirteen albums as original contributions, and points to the evidence 
of his live and televised performances as well as his social media status to show the major significance 
of his music. As the Director referred only to the reference letters in his analysis under this criterion, 
and did not consider the other evidence the Petitioner referred to in his initial filing and RFE response, 
he should do so when re-examining the evidence on remand. 
If after review the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, his decision 
should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether he has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record 
demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 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. 1 
Finally, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he will continue to work as a singer 
and songwriter in the United States, in part because the letter from a prospective employer which was 
submitted with the Petitioner's RFE response did not include contact information for the signer. On 
remand, the Director should review the material referenced in the Petitioner's brief and determine 
whether the evidence otherwise establishes that he seeks to continue working in his field in the United 
States. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of 
the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3