dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 01 062 51975 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 1J.S.C. 9 I153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Ofice in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further igquiry must be made to that off~ce. * 
I<: Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
California Service Center. On the basis of further review of the record, the director determined that the 
petitioner was not eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with 
notice of intent to revoke the approval of the immigrant visa petition, and the reasons therefore, and 
ultimately revoked the approval of the petition on October 15, 2003. The petitioner filed an appeal, which the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) deemed untimely.' The AAO remanded the case to the director for 
treatment as a motion. After granting the motion to reopen, the director affirmed the decision revoking the 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the AAO on certification. The director's decision will be 
affirmed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 I 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the followi~lg subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary abi!ityV means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. Jt should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
' The appeal was filed on November 17, 2003, 33 days after the decision was rendered. 8 C.F.R. 5 205.2(d) states that 
revocatio~~s of approvals must be appealed within fifteen days of the notice of revocation. The notice of revocation 
issued by the director, however, erroneously stated that the petitioner coiild file an appeal within 33 days. 
This petition, filed on December 15, 2000, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an actor. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to revoke, the petitioner submitted certificates from Back Stage West 
indicating that he won that publication's Garland 2000 award for his performance in Shopping and F**king and a 
Garland 2001 award for his performance in Orson's Shadow. A letter from~ditor-in-chief and 
Associate Publisher of Back Stage West, describes that publication as "a trade newspaper for Los Angeles 
performing artists" and a "pre-eminent theatre and casting publication on the West Coast." etter 
notes that the petitioner was awarded his Garland 2000 for Shopping and F**king in January 2001 and that the 
petitioner was "emerging as one of L.A.'s most promising new arrivals." We note here that petitioner seeks a 
highly restrictive visa classification, intended for aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather than 
for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. The regulations clearly call for 
evidence that the petitioner already enjoys national or international acclaim as a top actor. Rob Kendt 
concludes his letter by stating that the petitioner "has proven himself a leading figure and fixture of the Los 
Angeles theatre scene," but he does not state that the petitioner is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The petitioner's Garland awards from Back Stage West came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent developments in the alien's 
career cannot retroactively establish that he was already eligible for the classification sought as of the filing 
date. Regardless of the date that the petitioner received his Garland awards, it has not been shown that the 
awards are reflective of national or international recognition, rather than local or regional recognition. The 
record contains no evidence showing that a Garland Award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
performing arts award in the same manner as, for example, a Tony Award or an Oscar. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the3eld for which class2Jication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaly translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.2 
The published materials presented by the petitioner consist almost entirely of local articles discussing 
theatrical productions in which the petitioner has appeared in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The petitioner 
provided evidence of pieces appearing in publications such as The Metropolitan, Los Angeles Weekly, Back 
Stage West, and Frontiers and in the local entertainment sections of newspapers such as The Sun Francisco Bay 
Guardian, The Bay Area Reporter, and The San Francisco Chronicle. The petitioner has not shown that 
advance theatrical reviews or promos of this type are unusual for actors appearing in a local theatrical 
production. In this case, the published reviews of the petitioner's performances are from publications serving 
the city where the petitioner, at that time, was residing and performing. Without evidence showing that his 
performances received significant media attention from outside of California, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner has sustained national acclaim as an actor. Furthermore, many of the articles presented by the 
petitioner only briefly mention him in the context of a piece about an overall theatrical production. 
Involvement in an event, such as theatrical production, that, as a whole, merits some local media coverage is 
not adequate to demonstrate an individual actor's sustained national or international acclaim. Finally, we note 
that some of the material presented in response to the notice of intent to revoke, such as the pieces in V 
Magazine (June 2002), Daib Variety (August 29, 2001), and The Los Angeles Times (May 3, 2001) were 
published subsequent to the petition's filing date. See Matter of Katigbak at 49. 
We note that the promo piece from V Magazine about the film New Suit devotes less than one sentence to the 
petitioner. The piece in The Los Angeles Times is a two-sentence promo listing the dates and times of upcoming 
performances of Orson ',s Shadow at the Black Dahlia Theatre (rather than a critical review or an article about the 
petitioner). The article in Daily Variety (which is about the overall Orson's Shadow production rather than the 
petitioner) mentions the petitioner's performance as follows: "The second scene has the elegant Tynan, 
performed ably by [the petitioner], convincing the master actor Olivier (Jeff Sugarman) of the directing 
choice. The play really takes off when Welles and Olivier begin locking horns.. . ." This article concludes by 
stating: "Neither Orson's Shadow nor the production is perfect. If one begins to expect the artistry here to 
live up to its subjects, disappointment is inevitable." 
The article appearing in The Metropolitan, "San Francisco's Journal of Arts, Society, Food and Fashion," states: 
"In San Francisco, you do a show to make money," acknowledges Doba, "and in L.A. you do it as a 
showcase. hoping you'll be seen by someone who can give you a job." 
But [the petitioner] has a somewhat blunter assessment of the Los Angeles theater scene. "It's a wankfest," 
he says. 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
[The petitioner] muses that the best solution for him would combine the career opportunities of Los 
Angeles and New York with the San Francisco lifestyle he relishes. "If I could keep a base here, while 
working in New York or LA., that would be ideal," he says. 
A pipe dream? Perhaps, but no more unrealistic than the long odds against succeeding in any city on the 
planet in the performing arts, a career path which has always attracted far more hopefuls than could ever 
realistically find gainful employment in the field they've chosen. 
The article in The Metropolitan is about local San Francisco actors aspiring for a "career upswing" rather than 
those who already enjoy national acclaim in the field of acting. This article indicates that the petitioner "is 
finding enough work to keep [himself] busy," but the article certainly does not state or imply that the petitioner 
has reached the very top of the acting field. 
The petitioner also appeared in what counsel describes as a "fashion spread in two separate editions of Sun 
Francisco Magazine. The petitioner, however, seeks classification not as an extraordinary male fashion model, 
but rather as an extraordinary actor. Nonetheless, the fashion spreads in Sun Francisco Magazine were local in 
nature and therefore not tantamount to qualifying national media exposure. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that that the petitioner has ever been the primary subject of a 
published article about his acting that has had significant national or international (rather than local) 
distribution. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientij?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thej?eld. 
The petitioner submitted several witness letters, mostly from individuals who have ccllaborated cn various 
productions with the petitioner or represented him at one time or another. The witness letters describe the 
petitioner as a talented actor, but they provide no information regarding how the petitioner's individual 
contributions have significantly influenced the theatrical field or the motion picture and television industries. 
For example, the petitioner's performances have not been shown to have greatly influenced other successful 
American or British actors/actresses. The issue here is not the skill level, professional experience, or 
dedication of the petitioner, but, rather, whether any of his past endeavors would qualify as a contributien of 
major significance in the performing arts. In this case, there is no evidence showing the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other professionals in the entertainment industry. 
Senior Vice President of Casting for Disney Pictures, states: "I believe [the petitioner] to be a 
very gifted and talented actor, deservedly held in high esteem by all those who have seen his work, and 
predict even greater triumphs in the future." oe; not indicate that she has ever cast the 
petitioner in a lead role for a Disney Production, nor does she state that the petitioner is nationally or 
internationally acclaimed as an actor. otes that she has cast television shows such as "Thirty 
Something", "China Beach", and "Growing Fains," but the record contains no evidence showing that the 
petitioner has ever played a lead acting role in a comparable nationally televised series. The petitioner's 
television roles appear mostly limited to brief "guest appearances" rather than recurring roles. 
Page 6 , 
opportunity to let his talent grow." She adds: "With the connections available to him in Hollywood, [the 
petitioner] could easily rise to the height of his field. We all foresee great things for [the petitioner], and 
encourage you to give him that opportunity." -statements indicate that the petitioner has not 
yet reached the very top of his field. 
In the same manner as writer, Director, Producer, Founder, and President, 
Another B.S. Production (an "independent film production company in the Northern California Bay Area"), 
states that the petitioner has a "growing reputation as a remarkable actor." Assertions from witnesses that the 
petitioner has a promising future do not establish eligibility under this classification, for the regulations 
clearly call for evidence that the petitioner already enjoys major success and acclaim. 
Felicia Fasano, Casting Dire 
and work with actors such 
states that she "very much 1 
she does not indicate that she has already cast him for a leading film or television role. Nor does she indicate 
in leading roles comparable to those off 
simple comparison of these actors' achievements with those of the petitioner 
amassed a record of accomplishment placing him at or near the top of his 
field. 
Evidence of the displq of the alien's work in the field at artistic e.xhibiti0n.s or showcases. 
The AAO has consistently found that this particular criterion is more appropriate for visual artists (such as 
sculptors and painters) rather than for performing artists such as the petitioner. The ten criteria in the 
regu!ations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Virtually 
every actor "displays" his work in the sense of performing in front of an audience. In the performing arts, 
acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but rather by attracting a 
substantial audience. For this reason, the regulations establish separate criteria, especially for those whose 
work is in the performing arts. The petitioner's stage and film performances are far more relevant to the 
"commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion. 
Nevertheless, counsel argues that the petitioner's talents "have been showcased in his leading roles for such 
critically acclaimed and award winning productions as Orson's Shadow and Shopping and F***ing." The 
petitioner's regional awards resulting from these productions have already been addressed. Given that the 
petitioner's acting is closely linked with the film industry, theatrical performance, and television broadcasting, 
the petitioner would not satisfy this criterion simply by demonstrating that his work has been featured in a 
theater production (such as his role in Orson's Shadow at the Tiffany Theatre), in the broadcast media (such 
as a guest appearance on ABC's The Geena Davis Show), or at an arts festival (such as the Edinburgh 
Festival). The petitioner in this case must demonstrate that his performances have consistently been the 
centerpiece of major productions at prestigious national or international venues. Such a standard must be set 
for the petitioner to establish that he enjoys sustained national or international acclaim at or near the top of his 
field. While the petitioner has submitted evidence of ensemble performances in theaters in San Francisco and 
Los Angeles, as well as some non-recurring television appearances, it does not follow that he has sustained 
Page 7 
national or international acclaim at the very top level. The petitioner has not submitted evidence of any 
individual performances that would satisfy this standard as of the petition's filing date. For example, the 
petitioner does not claim to have played a leading role in a Tony Award-winning Broadway show or in an 
Emmy Award-winning television series. Should Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) accept the 
appearance of an artist in an ensemble performance as satisfying this criterion, then it would follow that any 
actor who appeared in a group performance would satisfy this criterion for extraordinary ability, regardless of 
his role. Eligibility for this visa classification must rest on the petitioner's individual achievements at the 
national or international level, rather than relying on the petitioner's performance as one of several 
castmembers in a local play or in a non-award-winning television series or film production. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in u leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
Counsel argues that the petitioner has played a leading or critical role in the stage play Orson's Shadow. 
Counsel cites local media coverage, Garland Awards, and a "Los Arlgeles Drama Critics Circle" nomination 
certificate as evidence of this production's distinguished reputation. We accept that Orsonis Shadow enjoys a 
distinguished reputation as a stage production in Los Angeles or, to a larger extent, California, but there is no 
evidence showing that this production has distinguished itself at the nationa! level. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner "co-stars with Tom Hanks" in the motion picture release of The Polar 
Express. The petitioner submitted a written agreement dated March 25,2003 and signed by the petitioner and 
a representative of Castle Rock Pictures, Inc. This evidence came into existence subsequent to the petition's 
tiling date. See Matter of Katigbak at 49. The agreement states: 
I hereby agree to render services in connection with the scanning of my appearance with the motion 
picture project referred to as 'The Polar Express' and any remakes or sequels thereof (the "Picture") as 
instructed by Castle Rock Pictures ("Producer"). 
I grant Producer the right to scan my likeness, and to use it in connection with the Picture, without 
voice or with the voice of another andlor with music and sound effects. 
We do not find thar the scanning of the petitioner's likeness is tantamount to "co-starring wit in 
this production. Nor is there any evidence from Castle Rock Pictures, Inc. indicating the extent to which the - 
petitioner's image was used in the motion picture. ~nlirole, the petitioner's role in this movie 
was minor and, according to the above agreement, did not even require the petitioner to use his voice. While 
Tom Hanks undoubtedly enjoys sustained national and international acclaim as a top actor, the evidence 
presented in this matter is not adequate to support the same conclusion regarding the petitioner. 
Evidence that the alien hm commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thejield. 
The record contains evidence of petitioner's tax returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002. According to his tax 
returns, the petitioner earned $12,448 in 2000, $26,171 in 2001, and $30,061 in 2002. There is no indication 
that this income is "significantly high" in relation to that of other professional actors. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofie receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The regulation calls for commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply documenting the 
petitioner's participation in a stage play, motion picture film, or video game release cannot meet the plain 
wording of the regulation. The record contains no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" to show that 
that the petitioner's performances drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in 
greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. In regard to the 
petitioner's television performances, the petitioner has not shown that he has played a lead recurring role in a 
television series with a significantly large national audience. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at 
least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nonetheless, on March 24,2001, the California Service 
Center approved the petition in error. We note here that the approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the 
beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in the visa application 
process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988). 
On April 9, 2003, the petitioner appeared before a CIS officer at the Los Angeles District Office regarding his 
Applicatior! for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence, Form 1-485. At that time, it was 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the regulatory criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability and that 
his petition had been approved in error. The petition was then forwarded to the California Service Center for 
revocation of the approval of the petition. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for 
what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly 
issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's 
failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of 
record at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho at 582, 590 (citing Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
In Matter of Ho, the Board found that because "there is no right or entitlement to be lost, the burden of proof in 
visa petition revocation proceedings properly rests with the petitioner, just as it does in visa petition proceedings." 
On July 7,2003, the director of the California Service Center issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval 
of the petition. The notice of intent to revoke informed the petitioner that the evidence presented did not 
satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On August 6, 2003, the Service Center received the petitioner's response to the Notice of Intent to Revoke 
and it was incorporated into the record of proceeding. The evidence included in the petitioner's submission 
(such as, for example, his Garland Awards and the published material from 2001) has already been addressed 
in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria. 
On October 15, 2003, the director of the California Service Center properly revoked the approval of the 
petition. In Matter of Ho, the Board found that, pursuant to section 205 of the Act. CIS may revoke the approval 
of a petition "at any time for good cause shown." We find that Matter of Ho supports CIS' determination. 
in a letter accompanying the petitioner's appellate submission, counsel argued that section 106(c) of the 
American Competitiveness in the 21" Century Act renders the petitioner "entitled to permanent residence 
even after revocation of the 1-140." As a result of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century 
Act of 2000 (AC21). Public Law 106-313, the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to include the 
following section: 
Section 2046) of the Act states: 
Job Flexibility for Long Delayed Applicants for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Residence - A 
petition under subsection (a)(l)(D) [since redesignated section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act] for an 
individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 has been filed and 
remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the 
individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational 
classification as the job for which the petition was filed. 
Section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act states: "Any employer desiring and intending to employ within the United 
States an alien entitled to classification under section 203(b)(l)(B), 203(b)(l)(C), 203(b)(2), or 203(b)(3) may 
file a petition.. .for such classification." 
In the present case, the petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, therefore, pursuant to section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act, the provisions of AC21 do not 
apply to the petitioner. 
In a letter responding to the Notice of Certification, counsel requests oral argument. The regulations, 
however, provide that the requesting party must adequately explain in writing why oral argument is 
necessary. Furthermore, CIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant 
argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in 
writing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(b). Counsel's assertion that "the initial approval was correct, the revocation 
was without basis, and the Service misinformed [the petitioner], in writing, of the time he had in which to file 
appeal" are issues that can, and in this instance have already been, adequately addressed in writing. In this 
case, we find that the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. 
Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
Counsel also states: 
With respect, it is a startling waste of precious resources within the Department of Homeland Security 
for approved cases to be re-opened and revoked on the basis of a marginal disagreement between one 
immigration officer and another, particularly in the context of an extraordinary ability petition where 
the matter is clearly one of judgment and where [CIS] does not allege fraud or other impropriety by the 
applicant. 
The record includes a letter from U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos of California dated June 18, 2004. In the 
same manner as counsel, Congressman Lantos states: "1 hope you agree with me that it would be 
unconscionable for [the petitioner's] legitimate application, which [CIS] admits was made without fraud, to 
be retroactively revoked due to a difference in opinion between reviewers. .It is my hope that you will 
overturn the CSC's decision . . . ." 
We regret that more than thirty months had elapsed between the approval and the revocation (the record offers no 
explanation for this delay). Nevertheless, section 205 of the Act specifically allows for revocation "at any time," 
and the pertinent regulations are silent as to the issue of elapsed time. It should be emphasized that revocation of 
the approval of a petition is not limited only to instances involving fraud. By itself, the director's realization that 
a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause for the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke 
an immigrant petition. See Matter of Ho at 582, 590. 
In this matter, the issue is not simply "a differelwe in opinion betwezn reviewers" or "a marginal 
disagreement between one immigration officer and another," but, rather, the petitioner's failure to 
demonstrate eligibility under at least threz of the regu!atory criteria set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(3). This regulation outlines the specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an 
alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his field of expertise. A petitioner 
cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least 
three criteria. In determining whether a petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it establishes that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim. 
In the present case, we find no indication that the petitioner enjoys a national reputation in the United States 
or the United Kingdom. Rather, the notoriety and publicity surrounding the petitioner is mostly limited to 
two regions in California (Los Angeles and San Francisco). 
The fundamental nature of this highly restrictive visa classification demands comparison between the alien 
and others in his field. The regulatory criteria describe types of evidence that the petitioner may submit, but it 
does not follow that every performer who has appeared on stage, or who has received some degree of 
recognition at the regional level, is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the burden 
of proof for this visa classification is not an easy one to satisfy, the classification itself is not meant to be easy 
to obtain; an alien who is not at the top of his field will be, by definition, unable to submit adequate evidence 
to establish such acclaim. This classification is for individuals at the rarefied heights of their respective fields; 
an alien can be successful, and even win praise from well-known figures in the field, without reaching the top 
of that field. In this case, the petition should never have been approved, and the director, upon learning of this 
error, essentially had no choice but to revoke the erroneous approval. The director acted appropriately, albeit 
belatedly, and we cannot overturn a decision that is couched in the pertinent statute, binding precedent, and 
regulations. 
In this matter, review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an actor to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set 
him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1361. The burden remains with the petiti0ner.h revocation proceedings to establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968), affirmed in 
Matter of Estime and Matter ofHo. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision is affirmed and the approval of the petition remains revoked.