remanded EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5803923 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 27, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a music composer, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets at least of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification. 
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). 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Petitioner is a music composer who has written scores for films, television, theater, 
and video games. 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 one of these ten criteria, 
relating to his receipt of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for his services in 
relation to others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). The record includes evidence of the 
Petitioner's income received in 2017 as well as favorable comparative salary data for his occupation 
and geographic area. Accordingly we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
The Director concluded, however that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the three additional criteria 
he claimed to meet, and therefore was not eligible for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted evidence establishes that he meets at 
least three of the alternate regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He contends that the 
Director's decision "was generic and cursory in content." 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director's decision was lacking a 
detailed analysis of the evidence submitted in support of his petition. 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). 
Here, the Petitioner claimed to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires that he 
provide evidence of his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in his field of endeavor. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had received 
"awards at several film festivals such as the I I International Film Festival in 2017" but 
determined that he had submitted "no evidence" that such prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. However, the record reflects that the Petitioner was nominated but did 
not receive an award at the I I International Film Festival. Further, the Director did not accurately 
find that the Petitioner submitted "no evidence" to establish that the prizes and awards he did win are 
2 
nationally or internationally recognized, as the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding the 
awarding entities and, in some cases, media articles relating to the awards. The record reflects that 
the Petitioner won an award for Best Soundtrack (Score) for the film I I at the I I 
International Film Festival, as well as several music composition awards in his native country of 
Turkey, but these awards are not mentioned in the Director's very brief discussion. We will remand 
this matter to the Director so that he can fully analyze all of the evidence submitted under this criterion. 
In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met the published material criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). First, the Director noted that while the Petitioner submitted articles about 
himself and relating to his work, he did not establish that these articles appeared in "major trade 
publications or other major media." The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had submitted 
letters to establish the circulation statistics of certain publications, but the record does not support this 
observation. Finally, the Director found that the Petitioner "also submitted articles that did appear in 
major media outlets in Turkey about projects on which he worked, but articles that are not about the 
petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion." The Petitioner submitted more than 30 exhibits under 
this criterion and the Director did not specifically reference any one publication or article. Without 
any specific evidence noted for context, the Director's determination reads as potentially 
contradictory. 
As a result, we find the Director's brief analysis of this criterion does not adequately inform the 
Petitioner of his reasons for determining that none of the submitted evidence meets the regulatory 
language. Upon review, we find that at least some of the submitted articles published in Turkish media 
such as Hurriyet newspaper, were in fact about the Petitioner and his work in the field of music. 
Therefore, we also remand this matter for the Director to re-examine the evidence submitted under 
this criterion. 
Finally, the Director addressed the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires the 
Petitioner to submit evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The Director noted that the Petitioner had 
submitted "letters attesting to his work on various film and television shows" and determined that such 
productions and shows do not qualify as "organizations or establishments." Here, we are unable to 
determine whether the Director considered evidence the Petitioner provided in response to a request 
for evidence. This evidence included new letters from representatives of the companies that hired the 
Petitioner to perform work on their projects, and were intended to establish that he played a leading 
or critical role for these organizations. 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 one 
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 her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
3 
documentation. 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. 1 
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/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 expertise of the immigrant classification). 
4