sustained EB-1A Case: Music

MATTER OF M-L-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 25,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a composer, lyricist and performer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. 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, as required, that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the regulatory requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director did not properly 
assess the record. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 m 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 
.
Matter of M-L-R-
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 the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide suflicient 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 demonstrates that 
certain of these criteria are not readily applicable to the occupation, comparable evidence is 
acceptable. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0). 
1 
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.'' Malter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner is an award-winning composer and lyricist who has written distinguished songs and 
musicals, including an award-winning show. In 20 It, he wrote a collection of songs for the 
television series ' The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the awards 
criterion 2 but did not meet any others. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner also satisfied 
the published materials criterion and 
the judging criterion. 3 We further note that the record contains 
comparable evidence to the display criterion. 4 Finally, considering all of the submissions in the 
aggregate, including achievements we do not address under the criteria, he has demonstrated 
national or international acclaim. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met a single criterion as the recipient of several awards 
that have garnered him thousands of dollars. For example, he received the : Prize for 
Music Theatre. Several newspapers covered the award selection, including the and 
Accordingly, the Director correctly concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the awards criterion 
1 This case discusses 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. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vi). 
4 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
2 
.
Matter of M-L-R-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). At issue, then, is whether he meets an additional two criteria. For the 
reasons discussed below, we find that he has. 
Published materials 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 qfthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.f.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
While not all of the articles are specifically about the Petitioner, several are and appear in major 
media. For example, the record contains ' in the 
in and "[The Petitioner] 
in the The record contains independent information with the 
readership numbers for the and the consistent with a finding that these 
are major media publications in Australia. Accordingly. the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge ofthe work (~l 
others in the same or an alliedfield ofspec~ficationfor which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner served as one of three paid judges for the initiative that 
supports organizations presenting musical theater. The selection criteria include the artistic merit of 
the project and some awardees received over $100,000 in grant money. We find that the artistic 
merit of a musical theater project falls within the Petitioner's field or an allied field. Accordingly, he 
meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a Petitioner to offer comparable evidence where 
certain criteria do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. In addition to meeting three 
criteria, we further note that the record contains comparable evidence of the Petitioner's work on 
display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). ''Display" implies a visual 
component to the exhibition or showcase whereas the Petitioner's compositions are for listening 
entertainment. Thus, we are satisfied that this criterion does not readily apply to composers and 
lyricists rather than it being a difficult one for them to meet. Moreover. the evidence we are 
considering here does not fall directly under a separate criterion. 5 Specifically, three singers 
performed the Petitioner's songs in '' [the Petitioner]" at the 
in New York. In addition, '' 
of [the Petitioner]" in Australia featured his "most acclaimed songs.'' Two websites favorably 
reviewed the latter program and reviewed the original cast recording on compact disc. 
5 We interpret the provision allowing comparable evidence to admit exhibits that would otherwise not receive 
consideration under the initial analysis. Where an existing criterion directly addresses a type of documentation, we need 
not also analyze such material under this provision. 
.
Maller (?f M-L-R-
When considering whether an item is comparable, we look at the overall quality. In this matter, a 
revue or compilation that celebrates musical compositions at a distinguished venue and receives 
favorable reviews is sufficiently analogous to a visual artistic display. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
As noted above, the Petitioner is an award-winning composer and lyricist. Several news outlets have 
reported on his selections for these awards , garnering him recognition. His musical, 
was nominated for the Award and he received the $50,000 
Prize for that play. Awards are Australia's premier national awards for the live 
performance industry. which has the highest readership in Australia, and 
favorably reviewed that show, which reflects its critical acclaim. 
The record 
contains numerous articles in major media featuring the Petitioner and his success in the 
musical theater industry. For example, the article in characterizes his skills as well 
recognized. In 2015, the selected 10 of the Petitioner's songs 
to include in their syllabus for the country 's first national program for musical theater study, 
suggestive of their recognition of his importance to Australian musical theater. Performances 
celebrating his songs took place in Australia, resulting in a compact disc release, and in New York. 
These events garnered him not only exposure but the nature of the venues, the promotion of the 
events as celebrating his work, and the level of media coverage is consistent with name recognition. 
In 2013, the selected the Petitioner as one of four $100,000 fellowship recipients, 
with the funds designed to support his development of four new musicals, an achievement that the 
Australian media reported, consistent with his acclaim in that country. 
Finally, as part of the Petitioner ' s career, he performed the title role in with the 
While much ofthe evidence relates to his compositions, we are 
satisfied that his performances are reflective of his overall talent and acclaim in the musical theater 
industry as a whole, a relevant consideration in the final merits determination. Considering all of the 
evidence in the aggregate, we are satisfied that the Petitioner enjoys national or international acclaim 
and is within the small percentage at the top of his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner presented the requisite initial evidence and the record in the aggregate demonstrates 
his acclaim and status at the top of the field. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter (~fM-L-R-, ID# 597102 (AAO Jan. 25, 2018) 
4