DEC232024_02B2203Decided 2024-12-23I-140

A Brazilian bass player's EB-1A extraordinary ability petition was dismissed because he satisfied only one of the…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1AField: musician (bass player, composer, arranger, and bass playing instructor)Origin: Brazil
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten required EB-1A criteria. The petitioner satisfied only one criterion (artistic display) out of eight claimed, which is insufficient to clear the threshold.

1 / 3 criteria needed Need 2 more

2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.

In plain English

A professional Brazilian bass player and music instructor sought an EB-1A green card based on extraordinary ability, claiming eight of ten regulatory criteria. The Texas Service Center denied the petition, finding only one criterion met (artistic display), and the AAO affirmed on appeal. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his award had national or international recognition, that his professional memberships required outstanding achievements, or that published materials about him met regulatory requirements. Evidence of commercial success through course sales, YouTube views, and a charity fundraiser was also insufficient. Because the petitioner could not reach three satisfied criteria even if the disputed original contributions criterion were resolved in his favor, no final merits determination was conducted.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The petitioner successfully established the artistic display criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) by showing his musical performances were featured at various venues.

What failed: 1. Award evidence lacked proof that the award itself had national or international recognition beyond the petitioner's own win. 2. Membership organizations (ABRAMUS, OMB, Latin Recording Academy) did not demonstrably require outstanding achievements of members. 3. Published material submissions were missing required regulatory elements (author, date, title) or did not substantively discuss the petitioner and his work. 4. Commercial success evidence (course revenue, YouTube views, charity fundraiser proceeds) lacked comparative context and conflated engagement with actual commercial success from music sales.

Takeaway: Petitioners claiming prestigious awards must document the award's own national or international recognition — not just winning it — with robust media coverage and comparative context. Evidence of commercial success must reflect actual music sales or box office receipts with comparative benchmarks, not instructional course revenue or social media metrics alone.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • The petitioner successfully established the artistic display criterion (8 C.F.R
  • § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) by showing his musical performances were featured at various venues.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • Award evidence lacked proof that the award itself had national or international recognition beyond the petitioner's own win
  • Membership organizations (ABRAMUS, OMB, Latin Recording Academy) did not demonstrably require outstanding achievements of members
  • Published material submissions were missing required regulatory elements (author, date, title) or did not substantively discuss the petitioner and his work
  • Commercial success evidence (course revenue, YouTube views, charity fundraiser proceeds) lacked comparative context and conflated engagement with actual commercial success from music sales.
Find more EB-1A cases with similar evidence patterns →
What the evidence showed

Criterion-by-criterion breakdown

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards

Not met

Petitioner won a 2017 award selected by popular vote among finalists, with corporate and Ministry of Culture backing, but failed to show the award itself had national or international recognition. Limited media coverage (press conference, two brief articles, a short TV mention) was insufficient.

Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement

Not met

Memberships in ABRAMUS, OMB, and the Latin Recording Academy did not satisfy the criterion. ABRAMUS and OMB bylaws did not require outstanding achievements; Latin Recording Academy voting membership requires a certain number of releases, not a showing of outstanding achievement.

Published material about the person

Not met

31 articles lacked required regulatory elements (title, date, or author). Remaining submissions either did not discuss the petitioner or his work, consisted of short introductions, or were instructional videos. Publications like No Treble lacked adequate viewership metrics to qualify as major media.

Authorship of scholarly articles

Not met

Evidence showed the petitioner was listed as a contributor to a music magazine, but no authored articles were identified. The submitted evidence was a transcribed musical composition and biography, not scholarly articles. Publication also lacked circulation data to qualify as major media.

Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases

Met

AAO agreed with the Director that the petitioner's musical performances were featured at various venues, satisfying this criterion. The only criterion found met.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations

Not met

Recommendation letters from five endorsement companies described the petitioner's marketing contributions and promotions but lacked detailed and probative information showing his role was of significant importance to those organizations.

Commercial successes in the performing arts

Not met

PayPal payments and Hotmart sales reports lacked context. Revenue from bass courses was distinguished from music sales. YouTube views and social media followers lacked comparative basis. Charity fundraiser revenue could not be solely attributed to petitioner's performance. Some evidence post-dated the March 2023 filing date and was therefore ineligible.

Evidence that persuaded the AAO

Evidence of musical performances featured at various venues, satisfying the artistic display criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii))

Where the evidence fell short

Award evidence: winning a 2017 contest by popular vote with limited media coverage was insufficient to show national or international recognition

ABRAMUS and OMB membership documents: bylaws did not reflect outstanding achievement requirements

Latin Recording Academy membership: release-count requirement does not equate to outstanding achievement; support letters contained only vague references to 'rigorous criteria'

31 published articles lacking required title, date, or author elements

Screenshots from Globo Television that referenced but did not discuss the petitioner or his work

No Treble articles consisting mainly of short introductions without substantive discussion of the petitioner

YouTube videos from Sesc Brasil identified as instructional guitar lessons, not published material about the petitioner

Viewer/session metrics without comparative context insufficient to establish major media status

Transcribed musical composition submitted as evidence of scholarly article authorship

Endorsement company recommendation letters lacking specific detail on leading or critical role

PayPal and Hotmart revenue without context to establish commercial success

MyEduzz revenue from bass courses (not music sales)

YouTube views (900,000) as measure of commercial success without comparative benchmarks

Charity fundraiser proceeds of BRL $1,239,000 not solely attributable to petitioner's performance

Bass course sales evidence from May 2023–February 2024, post-dating the March 2023 filing date

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Professional bass player who also composes, arranges music, and creates instructional bass playing videos

Completed

Director — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2024-12-23

AAO decision — Dismissed

The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten required EB-1A criteria. The petitioner satisfied only one criterion (artistic display) out of eight claimed, which is insufficient to clear the threshold.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.

Buy me a coffee
Authorities the office relied on
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)8 C.F.R. § 103.38 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1)
ChawatheThe petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christo'sThe AAO reviews questions in the matter de novo.
BagamasbadFederal agencies, like courts, are not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the result reached.
KazarianEstablishes the two-step review: first count qualifying criteria, then conduct a final merits determination if the threshold is met.
VisinscaiaSupports the Kazarian two-step framework for evaluating extraordinary ability petitions.
RijalSupports the Kazarian two-step framework for evaluating extraordinary ability petitions.
PriceEven athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the extraordinary ability standard.