dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15865404 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 16, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actress, 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 )(1 )(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 meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a 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 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C. 2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actress and model who has worked in commercial, music video and film projects, 
as well as in print and television advertising campaigns for major brands. The Petitioner indicates that 
she intends to continue working as an actress in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to meet six of these ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (ii), Membership in organizations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in major media; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in her field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met one of these evidentiary criteria, related to judgin~ 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a jury member for theLJ 
I IFilm Festival held in 2016 and therefore supports the Director's determination that she 
meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard in adjudicating the remaining criteria. She maintains that she meets five additional criteria, 
discussed below, and is otherwise eligible for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied only one 
criterion and does not meet the initial evidence requirements for this classification. 
2 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the 
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 1 Further, the overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility based on her membership in the ~I------~ 
.__~ __ _.I private members club, noting that the club "caters to a select group of industty 
professionals." She submitted evidence that she paid an annual membership fee in 2018 and 2019. 
However, she did not provide any additional evidence to establish that this club could be considered 
an association in her field, nor did she provide evidence of its membership requirements or evidence 
that admission decisions are judged by recognized national or international experts in that field. In a 
request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner of the deficiencies in the initial 
evidence, clearly informed her of the elements of this criterion that must be met, and allowed her an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence, such as the association's bylaws or constitution. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner maintained her eligibility based on her membership inD 
I I noting that it is I lprivate members' clubs originally aimed 
at those in the arts and media." The Petitioner explained that the club has a membership committee 
of 30 to 40 experts from "the creative industries" who meet Juarterly to discuss new members. The 
Petitioner emphasized thatthd.__ __________ __.club has "a very long waiting list" and 
includes prominent actors among its members. She provided several media articles abou~ I 
and submitted its "House Rules" in lieu of its bylaws or constitution. 
The Director determined that the evidence did not establish that I !requires outstanding 
achievements of its members as judged by national or international experts in the Petitioner's field. 
The record supports that conclusion. While membership in the club appears to be fairly exclusive, 
with membership decisions made at the discretion of a membership committee, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the club requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership, 
nor does it establish that the membership committee is comprised of recognized national or 
international experts in the Petitioner's field. 
1 Sec USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidcncc Submitted with CcrtainForml-140Pctitiom,~· 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD 11-14 6-7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguishedachievementsin 
origin a 1 research). 
3 
In her res onse to the RFE, the Petitioner also submitted evidence of her membershi in the 
Filmmakin Union which she described as a 
Specifically, she 
submitted a copy of her membership card along with an English language translation. The Director 
determined that this evidence was insufficient, noting that the Petitioner offered no evidence of the 
union's membership requirements and therefore did not demonstrate that her membership met all 
elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a new letter from filmmakd l who states that he is 
a Board Member of the Filmmaking Union I I and discusses the union's membership 
requirements and admissions procedures. The Petitioner emphasizes that the submission of new 
evidence on appeal is permitted based on Chapter 3.8 oftheAAO Practice Manual. 
While there are instances in which we consider new evidence submitted on appeal, in this matter, the 
Director's RFE fully informed the Petitioner of the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the type of evidence needed to demonstrate that her membership in a given 
association meets all elements of this criterion. She was the op]ortunity to submit evidence of the 
membership requirements for the Filmmaking Union I prior to the denial of the petition. 
Accordingly, we will not consider this new supporting evidence in our adjudication of the appeal See 
Matter o_[Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on 
notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before 
the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will 
adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The cited section of the AAO Practice Manual does not 
supersede case law or allow for the submission of evidence that was previously requested in an RFE. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in pro_fessional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
To fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must provide published material about her and relating to her 
work in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and 
author of the material. 2 The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted "articles which merely 
mention you, which do not include their author, and which are about your modeling career" noting 
that "none are about you as it relates to your work in acting." The Director acknowledged that one 
article, published byl !briefly discusses the Petitioner's acting career, but emphasized that 
she did not submit comparative data showing that this publication is a major medium. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director's detennination that the published materials 
merely mention her is "blatantly false," noting that she was featured in the cover story of two 
2 Sec USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 7. 
4 
magazines as well as in several other articles. The Petitioner concedes that "not every article included 
the name of the author" but points to several articles in which the author was identified. The Petitioner 
also maintains that the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) does not require the submission 
of circulation numbers, but nevertheless emphasizes that she submitted this evidence for at least two 
of the submitted publications. Finally, she states that the evidence she submitted is "relevant, probative 
and credible" and therefore establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that she meets this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted articles published bY.,-------,--;:::=====-.:.!:' I =::;I 
I 
.__ ____________ _. ~-----~ .__ ___ __, and.__ ___ ~ We agree with 
the Petitioner that some of the submitted articles are about her, relate to her work as an actress, and 
include the required date, title and author of the material. 
However, to meet all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner must provide 
evidence that published material about her appeared "in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." 4 Here, the Petitioner submitted a considerable number of articles, but, with 
respect to almost all of them, she did not provide evidence to supp01i her claim that they were 
published in major media publications. 
Her initial evidence included a letter from the Head ofi I who discusses the 
circulation of the newspa er noting it is "one of the most respected and 
successful puh)jcatiaof i .__ __ _,with a circulation of 2.2 million copies" and "the leader among all 
print media inl,__ __ _. with distribution in 60 countries worldwide. The Petitioner indicated in her 
initial supporting letter that she was submitting an aiiicle from.__ _______ ~ but none of the 
articles in the record ( or their accompanying English translations) clearly identify that newspaper as 
the source. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from th~-------------~ publisher of the 
I " lnewspaper. According to the letter, this weekly newspaper's circulationof35,000 copies 
gives it a "leading position in the print media market ofi t' The letter lists otherregional weekly 
newspapers with circulation figures that range from 7 000 to 50,000 copies. However, the fact that this 
~1 weekly newspaper has a higher circulation than some of the other weekly newspapers in 
L__J does not demonstrate that it qualifies as "major media" itj I 
In the RFE, the Director acknowledged that an aiiicle published byl I was about the 
Petitioner and her acting career, but specifically noted that she did not provide evidence thatl I I I is a major media publication. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner she did not provide any 
additional evidence in support of her claim that published materials about her have appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
3 The Petitioneralsoprovidedevidencethat she appeared as a print/editorial model in Marie Claire(Hong Kong) and other 
magazines, butthese publications did notincludearticles about her. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional ormajortrade publications orin other major media publications should establish that thecirculation(on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 
On appeal, the submits a screenshot from Site Worth Trc~ffic (siteworthtraffic.com) which provides an 
estimate of "the website value ofl I" indicating that it reaches I 053 unique users each day 
and over 384,000 unique visitors per year (based on figures last updated six years ago). Even if we 
considered this previously requested evidence in adjudicating the appeal, it does not provide 
comparative data demonstratingtha~ [qualifies as a major medium based on its circulation 
relative to otherl I online media. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the submitted published 
materials about her meet all the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(iii). 
Evidence of the individual ·s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she 
made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, 
a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided reference letters from actors, producers, 
directors and others in the entertainment industry who praise her talents and abilities, but determined 
that the letters did not demonstrate how she has made contributions of major significance in her field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that letters from experts in her field are not presumptive 
evidence of her eligibility but asserts that they nevertheless "contain substantive evidence of [her] 
original and significant contributions to the entertainment industry." 
The Petitioner further argues that the letters "demonstrated that her work evoked widespread 
commentary, and thus were contributions of major significance." She emphasizes that the letters 
"expressly state that her performances and contributions to her field are 'unique,' 'particular,' 
'significant,' and 'original."' She also maintains that she "has major significance in the industlv 
because she contributes and embodies the extremely unique combination oti I I !culture." Finally, the Petitioner mentions her ability to speak~--------~and 
English languages, noting that filmmakers "would be extremely hard-pressed to find another actor 
who brings [her] specific background to the entertainment industry." 
The reputation of persons who provided letters in support of her petition is not in dispute in this 
proceeding, nor do we doubt their sincerity in praising the Petitioner's talents and abilities. However, 
it is the Petitioner's burden to both specify her original contributions and to document the major 
significance of those contributions in her field. The fact that she submitted credible letters from 
reputable individuals in her industry does not lead to a determination that she has satisfied this 
criterion, particularly if the letters do not shed light on the specific nature of her original contributions 
and their impact or influence on the field. We address a representative sample of the letters below but 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from actm~~----~I who states that she "has demonstrated that 
she can handle the demands of this industry and brings talent and devotion to every role." Music 
produce~ I praises the Petitioner's '"positive attitude and goal-oriented approach to 
6 
work," and states that "her acting skills and personal ualities contribut[ e] to the success in the 
entertainment industry." Film and television produce he Petitioner a~ 
intelligent, worldly and beautiful contribution to our industry" an-.... _____ _,, Chairman ofl__J 
I I states that she has "amazing ability as an actress," and "is a professional and a quality person 
with no bad habits." A letter from art director! I states that the Petitioner has "strong 
acting skills" and a "unique look" which are in high demand and contribute to "the cultural diversity 
and richness of American cinematographic culture.'i lo~ l similarly praises 
the Petitioner's "very strong acting skills" and '"unique look and talent," while actor and stunt/fight 
coordinatoJ I states that the Petitioner is "unique in her field due to her look, language and 
experience working around the world." 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Hollywood producer and television series creat010 
I lwho describes · · as an actress of "uncommon potential,"notingthathe had intended 
to cast her in the series n 11 tion. He states that she "brings the rare qualities 
of authenticity from her native~----~--~oots," and praises her intelligence, integrity, 
sincerity and work ethic, noting that she "deserves every opportunity to contribute to the American 
media industry, especially as our industry develops more and more transnational outreach."! I I I the Minster of Culture! I describes the Petitioner as "a talented and 
beautiful person." He states that he is "very proud that she is promoting our native culturd ~ I 
and abroad." I I film director and producer! I praises the Petitioner's "outstanding 
artistic skills," "perfect attitude" and her "multicultural background and incredible knowledge and 
understanding of people around the world." 
The Petitioner did not establish how having a diverse skillset, a paiiicular cultural background or 
language skills, or a unique look is an original contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself. 
Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and 
talents to impact the field at a significant level, which she has not shown. Moreover, the letters do not 
comment on the Petitioner's impact in the field beyond the scope of projects in which she has 
performed or participated. 5 General claims that she has the potential to contribute to cultural diversity 
in American cinema do not establish her eligibility under this criterion. 
The submitted letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying the Petitioner's original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence her work has had in her field. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 
Although the Petitioner emphasizes that the authors used terms such as "original," "unique" and 
"significant" in their letters, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. 
The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The letters the Petitioner solicited from 
her international industry contacts establish that persons who have worked with her consider her to be 
a talented and hard-working actress, with a cultural background and physical appearance that are in 
5 See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013)(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not corroborate herimpactin the field as a whole). 
6 Sec USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 8-9. 
7 
demand in the industry and allow her to perform in diverse roles. However, they do not demonstrate 
her original contributions of major significance in the field of acting. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3 )(viii) 
As it relates to a leading role, a title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role 
is or was, in fact, leading. Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role 
that determines whether the role is or was critical. 7 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner claimed leading roles for various brands based on her commercial 
and print advertisement modeling work, leading roles for magazines based on her appearance as a 
cover model, and leading roles in film and music video projects. While she provided evidence of her 
participation in the modeling and acting projects she mentioned, the Director advised her in the RFE 
that she would need to submit additional evidence in order to establish that her work has satisfied all 
elements of this criterion. Specifically, the Director asked that she submit letters from executives wi1h 
personal knowledge of the significance of her leading or critical role, noting that such letters should 
provide "detailed and probative information which specifically addresses how your role for an 
organization was leading or critical." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion bas¢..Qn....ili.e following 
specific roles: (1) leading actress in a l t commercial campaign forL__J (2) leading 
actress in a commercial campaign fo Stores and its cosmetics line; (3) leading 
actress inl hdve1iorials; ( 4) leading actress in the filml If 5) leading actress in the music 
video forl I'; and ( 6) leading actress in anl commercial campaign for the 
Chinese market. She did not submit the requested supporting letters from representatives of the 
organizations that employed her in these roles. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claims but determined that she did not establish her 
eligibility under this classification because she did not submit letters from "executive officers wi1h 
personal knowledge of the significance of your leading or critical role." On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that "[n]owhere in the 'plain language of this criterion' is there any mention whatsoever of 
'letters from high-level executive officers with personal knowledge' of an applicant's role, let alone a 
requirement thereof." Further, she maintains that she submitted letters from individuals who seive as 
owners, CEO and chairman of companies that employed her as an actress and directors of projects in 
which she staned, and therefore it is "completely ridiculous" for USCIS to claim that she did not 
submit such letters. She highlights excerpts from several of these letters on appeal, which we address 
below. The individuals who provided these letters did not state with specificity how the Petitioner 
7 Sec USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 10. 
8 
performed for their organizations in a leading role or in a critical role that impacted the organizations' 
activities in a significant way. 
The Petitionerrefers to a letter frorrJ l owner of advertising production company! I 
~ I who mentions that his company has worked with the Petitioner on campaigns for brands such 
as_ las well as twoO television commercials. The letter simply confirms that the Petitioner 
appeared in theOcampaign and does not speak to her leading or critical role within an organization. 
I I does not represent thec=Jbrand or the company that owns it I I and 
his letter does not establish that the Petitioner served in a leading or critical role within that 
organization based on her appearance as an actress in a commercial campaign for one of its products. 
The fact that the Petitioner appeared in commercials for a well-known brand is not sufficient to 
establish that she meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from.__ ______ ~ CEO & Co-founder o~ I .___~I who states that she is "one of our leading models and actresses [who] has been of tremendous 
help to our entertainment enterprises." The Petitioner did not claim that she performed in a leading or 
critical role wittj._~-~--~----'~ nor doe~ .... ----~t s letter provide sufficient detail to establish 
how her role was leading or critical to the organization. Further, the Petitioner has not provided 
evidence that this organization has a distinguished reputation. The Petitionerreferencesa similar letter 
froml !chairman ofl I who confirms that his company hired the Petitioner for 
"eleven (11) different projects as an actress." He does not provide any additional information that 
would establish how her role was leading or critical to the organization, nor does the record contain 
evidence demonstrating tha~ I has a distinguished reputation. 
The two remainTg letter! the Petitioner references on ap2eal are from who 
directed the film and I I director of the .__ ___ ____. music video. The letters 
confirm her work as an actress in these two projects, but do not explain or establish how her acting 
roles were leading or critical to a specific or anization or establishment with a distinguished 
reputation. She also provided a letter fro owner ot1 I who discusses 
casting her in a lead role in his fil.i,._ __ ____.but he does not discuss how her work on this film was 
leading or critical to his independent film studio, nor does the record include evidence establishing the 
distinguished reputation of that studio. 
Finally, the Petitioner maintains that the Director failed to consider other evidence that is relevant to 
this criterion, including deal memos, screenshots and photographs ofherwork, newspaper articles that 
discuss her projects, and letters from experts in her field who are familiar with her work. While this 
evidence confirms her participation as an actress and model in film, video, and advertising projects, it 
does not contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the Petitioner 
performed in leading or critical roles for specific organizations or establishments in way that 
contributed to their success or standing. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
9 
The Petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of this criterion: 
• A screenshot from the Department of Labor's online Occupational Outlook Handbook 
indicating that the median hourly wage for actors in the United States in 2018 was $1 7.54. 
• Screenshots from CareerOneStop providing salaries for actors in the .__ ______ __. 
Metro area" and the United States. 
• Screenshots from the Department of Labor's ONet Online website indicating that the 2019 
median hourly wage for actors in the United States is $20 .43. 
• A "Model Job Sheet" issued by.__ ________________ _,showingthat 
she earned gross (pre-commission) modeling fees of HK$155,000 between June and October 
2008 for fashion and beauty editorials and a photo shoot. 
• Her Russian "Statement on Physical Person's Income for year of 2013" (with English 
translation) showing total income ofF8510000 paid to her by I I 
Evidence regarding whether an individual's compensation is high relative to that of others working in 
the field may take many forms, and it is the Petitioner's burden to provide appropriate evidence, which 
may include geographical and position-appropriate salary surveys or similar data. 8 In addition, 
individuals who have worked in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics 
or comparable evidence in those countries, rather than by simply conve1iing the salary to U.S. dollars 
and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States. 9 
Here, the Petitioner requested that USCIS compare her 20081 I currency earnings and her 
2013 Russian currency earnings to average or median U.S. salary figures from2018 and 2019, which 
as noted above, do not provide an appropriate basis for comparison. While the Depa1iment of Labor 
resources she provided can be useful in evaluating evidence submitted under this criterion, they are 
only helpful for comparison when a petitioner provides evidence of her earnings in the United States, 
which was not the case here. The Petitioner did not previously provide any comparative salary or 
wage data for the countries in which she reported her earnings. Further, thel learnings she 
documented from 2008 did not include salary or remuneration for acting work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides new salary data for actors working in I I Russia from 
Salary Expert.com. The Petitioner's 2013 earnings from Russian company 'I I are high in 
comparison to the "average" and "senior level salary" figures provided in this survey. However, the 
record does not contain any other information or evidence related to I I Therefore, even if 
we consider this new evidence offered on appeal, we cannot determine whether or to what extent the 
income the Petitioner received from I I in 2013 was paid to her as salary or other 
remuneration for acting work. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that she also provided deal memos relating to her work in the United States. 
With one exception, all of this work was to be completed in 2020 or later, subsequent to the filing of 
the petition in December 2019, and therefore cannot establish that she had commanded a high salaty 
or other significantly high remuneration as of the date of filing. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
8 See USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.I,supra, at 7. 
9 Id. 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l ). A deal memo froltj !indicates 
that the Petitioner was to receive $5,000 per day for a two-day video shoot that was tentatively 
scheduled for late November 2019, but it was not accompanied by evidence that she had completed 
the shoot or been paid for this work as of the date of filing. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has been granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved 
for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, 
regulations, and case law. Further, it must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited 
to the information contained in thatindividualrecordofproceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). We 
are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been enoneous. See Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090(6thCir.1987). 
Finally, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a 
service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of fmal 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, l 990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
11 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12