remanded EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6057007 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 23, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a lead singer and songwriter, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at 
least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria and is eligible for the benefit sought. 
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 for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder, lead singer, and songwriter fotj I an Armenian! lband. 
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). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, relating to his 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner has r . ........, ..................... ..1.1.1.LJ......, 
than 15 music awards in Armenia between 2008 and 2018. These awards include .,............_ __ ..-- _ _, 
andl lat the National Music Awards, Best~-----~and .~--~ Armenian Music Awards, and various national awards sponsored by major radio and television 
networks in Armenia, among others. The Petitioner's documentation of his awards was accompanied 
by evidence, including media coverage from several sources, demonstrating that the awards 
themselves are nationally recognized, and evidence from the sponsoring organizations confirming that 
the Petitioner, asl Is songwriter and lead singer, was the individual recipient of most of 
these awards. Therefore, we agree with the Director's determination that this criterion has been met. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in his assessment of evidence submitted with 
respect to several other alternate regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Upon review, we 
agree with this assertion, as the Director's decision was lacking a detailed analysis of the evidence 
submitted in support of his petition with respect to certain criteria. An officer must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the 
decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); 
see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). 
First, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Petitioner submitted published materials about him and his work as a musician 
which appeared in newspapers, magazines, and on-line media, such as news and entertainment 
2 
websites, along with evidence from independent sources providing background information on 
Armenian print publications and digital media. The Petitioner submitted more than 20 articles under 
this criterion. However, the Director did not specifically reference any one publication or article in 
his analysis of the evidence, nor did he reference the supporting evidence submitted with respect to 
the circulation statistics for the publications that have covered the Petitioner's career as a musician. 
Rather, the Director's decision references "websites, biogs, and social media," includes a general 
analysis of the probative value of material published on the Internet, and concludes that "the 
information submitted from the bulk ofblogs and websites have little probative value for meeting this 
criterion." 
The Director's suggestion that all of the submitted evidence was derived from "websites, biogs and 
social media" is erroneous, and we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not adequately review 
the submitted evidence. Accordingly, we will remand this matter for the Director to re-examine the 
evidence submitted under this criterion, which included both print media and articles published by 
legitimate online news media. 
Next, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence that he 
participated, either individually or as a member of a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same 
or an allied field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim 
that he served as a member of a panel of judges for the 'I t' International Music Contest in 
2014, but referenced only two of more than ten evidentiary exhibits submitted by the Petitioner in 
determining that he did not meet this criterion. The Director also noted that "the regulation [ at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)] cannot be read to include every informal instance of evaluating subordinate 
employees," an observation that appears to be unrelated to the evidence the Petitioner submitted 
related to his judging of an international music competition. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Petitioner's claim on appeal that the Director did not fully consider the submitted evidence and instruct 
him to re-examine this criterion on remand. 
We further note that the Director declined to review the evidence the Petitioner submitted to satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), which relates to the display of the individual's work at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Director emphasized that this criterion is "limited to the visual 
arts." We disagree with the Director's determination that the plain language of the regulation renders 
this criterion applicable only to visual artists. The regulation requires only that the work displayed 
be a given petitioner's own work product and that the venues at which the individual's work was 
displayed be artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii); see also USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 9-10 (Dec. 
22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that officers 
should use the common dictionary definitions of "exhibition" and "showcase" in evaluating this 
criterion). As certain exhibitions or showcases featuring performing artists meet the plain language 
of this regulation, the Director should not have summarily disregarded the Petitioner's evidence and 
should re-examine this criterion on remand. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the Petitioner could not satisfy 
the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Director noted that the 
Petitioner had submitted evidence that he is the founder and lead singer of the bandl I but 
3 
determined that a band "is not an organization or establishment" and thus the evidence has no probative 
value for purposes of this criterion. Here, we are unable to determine whether the Director considered 
evidence the Petitioner provided in response to a request for evidence (RFE). This evidence included 
documentation related to the company 1 I" as well as a charitable foundation that 
was established by the Petitioner, and was intended to establish that he played a leading or critical role 
for these organizations, rather than simply for the band itself The Director's analysis suggests that he 
considered only the initial evidence submitted in support of this criterion, and for this additional 
reason, we will remand the matter to the Director. 
If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least two additional criterion beyond the two 
already met, 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, although not addressed in the Director's RFE or denial decision, the record as presently 
constituted does not contain sufficient evidence that the Petitioner is coming to the United States to 
continue work in his area of expertise. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), such 
evidence may include letters from prospective employers, evidence of pre-arranged commitments such 
as contracts, or a statement from the petitioner detailing plans on they intend to continue their work in 
the United States. At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted a "statement of intent" indicating 
that he "will continue to work in the United States as a singer." However, this brief and general 
statement does not detail his plans for continuing his work consistent with the regulatory requirements. 
For this additional reason, we will remand the matter to the Director. 
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, supra at 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/ 
HTML/PolicyManual.html (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 expe1iise of the immigrant classification). 
4