remanded EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2024 In Re: 29828545 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a musician who seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following 
analysis. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant 
classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l )(A)(i)-(iii) 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 international 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 criteria 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner 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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met seven of the regulatory 
criteria. The Director decided the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to judging and the 
display of the Petitioner's work but that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes or 
awards, membership, published material, high salary or remuneration, and commercial success. On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to all the criteria he 
previously claimed. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree the Petitioner satisfied 
the criteria the Director granted, and we conclude he has satisfied at least one additional criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Within the initial filing under Exhibit A, the Petitioner presented at least three forms of documentation 
in support of his claims that his published material evidence qualified as major media. That evidence 
identified several Bangladeshi newspapers as some of the highest ranking in national-level circulation. 
The articles about the Petitioner and relating to his work in the field appeared in some of those 
newspapers. 
When the Petitioner responded to the Director's request for evidence, he offered translated evidence 
from the Directorate of Film and Publications that also shows several of the publications containing 
articles about him and relating to his work in the field were among those with some of the highest 
2 
national circulation in Bangladesh. 1 The Director indicated the data represented raw numbers and that 
it did not provide the comparison to other circulation figures required by USCIS policy. As the 
document ranked 52 Bangladeshi newspapers by circulation numbers, it is unclear what the Director 
meant in their determination that "[ n ]o evidence was provided comparing the circulation figures of 
these publications to those of other similar publications. Data alone is insufficient to meet the 
requirements of this criterion." The Director also indicated that regional audiences are not generally 
considered to be major media. However, the scope of the materials we discussed above were more 
oriented toward a national level rather than limited to a smaller region within Bangladesh. 
Here, the Petitioner has offered evidence that his published material content meets this criterion's 
minimal requirements. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's unfavorable determination as it 
relates to this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we remand this matter so the 
Director can perform a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 Based on internet searches the translated evidence appears to have translated the Department of Film and Publications as 
the Directorate of Film and Publications. As department versus directorate are similar organizational concepts, we do not 
consider this to be detrimental to the translation's veracity. 
3