dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 12 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Depiutment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washingtpn , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF 
OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find ·the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice •of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
29GB) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review ·the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
:;J"a;_ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A). The director found that the petitioner had not established that "the beneficiary is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the top of the field of endeavor, and whether the beneficiary 
has sustained acclaim," and therefore, did not find the beneficiary to be ''an individual of extraordinary 
ability." 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the beneficiary's basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. Although the petitioner asserts on 
appeal that "USCIS ... goes out of its way to manufacture a basis for the decision to deny" and that 
"[t]he decision to deny is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Administrative Procedures Act 
("APA") at 5 U.S.C. § 706," the record does not support such claims. Nevertheless, the remedy for 
such an alleged error is for the AAO to consider all the evidence on appeal. Upon review of the entire 
record, the AAO concurs 
with the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the regulatory categories of evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO upholds the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established eligibility for 
the exclusive classification sought. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. The 
AAO's de novo authority is well recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 
145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
I. lAW 
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 following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusionis that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence on behalf of the beneficiary under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d . 
. II. ANALYSIS 
A. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence of at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. The ten categories in 
the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. For example, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) implicitly applies to the visual 
arts, and the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) expressly applies to the performing arts. 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides "[i]f the above standards do not readily 
apply to the [petitioner's] occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
[petitioner's] eligibility ." It is clear from the use of the word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that 
the rule, not the exception, is that the petitioner must submit evidence to meet at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not 
readily applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective 
evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §,204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is 
no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation as an actress cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as 
indicated in this decision, the petitioner asserts that she meets six of the ten criteria at the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet or 
submit documentary evidence 
of three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) does not allow 
for the submission of comparable evidence. 
B. Translations 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she 
is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Although the petitioner submitted a single certification in response to the director's request for 
evidence, it is unclear to which specific documents the certification pertains. Contrary to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petitioner's assertions on appeal, the submission of a single translation certification that does not 
identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). On appeal, the petitioner submitted a new certification 
which lists each document and has therefore overcome this issue. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Published material 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 of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Regarding the evidence submitted under the criterion, the director concluded that without a "certified 
English translation[] in accordance with 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3)[][,] USCIS is unable ... to consider 
them as evidence of published material." As discussed above, on appeal, the petitioner submitted an 
acceptable certification. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. 2003). Contributions must be 
documented and rise to the level of original artistic-related contributions "of major significance in 
the field." Recognition of the petitioner's talent as an actress does not equate to contributions of 
major significance in the field. Furthermore, regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase 
"contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer 
and clients or customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, ---·F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, 8 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The petitioner asserts that published material in which she is featured, her appearances in leading 
roles, a high salary and commercial success are evidence under this criterion, in addition to the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (viii), (ix) and (x). Evidence relating to, or even meeting, the 
published material, leading role, high salary and commercial success criteria is not presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Therefore, such evidence 
will not be discussed further under this criterion, but will be addressed under the appropriate 
corresponding criteria. 
The record contains a number of letters of recommendation filed with the initial petition and in 
response to the director's request for evidence. According to a theater director and 
producer who has coached the petitioner as an actress, the petitioner "is definitely at the top of the 
soap opera acting field in Colombia, due to her extraordinary talent in acting." 
a filmmaker who worked with the petitioner on two television series, writes that the 
petitioner "has made major contributions to the field of Spanish-language television serials, by 
playing the leading role in at least a dozen long-running television series." who acted 
with the petitioner on a soap opera, states that the petitioner's "long and successful career so far in 
television acting" is a result "of her original and unique contributions to the television productions 
she has worked on." a Colombian actor who worked with the petitioner on a 
television series, states that "it is very difficult to stay current because newer, younger actors are 
constantly rising up and quickly replacing the current actors," but that the petitioner "has 
risen to the 
top and remained there for several years" due to her "extraordinary talent and versatility." 
The remaining letters, which are from individuals who have worked with the petitioner, praise her 
"versatility," "dedication and professional commitment," and "quality of work" and state that she has 
a "wonderful career" and is an "enormous talent." While the letters are very complimentary, the 
petitioner's colleagues and acquaintances ·fail to provide concrete examples of the petitioner's 
contributions and do not indicate that her contributions are of major significance. 
The petitioner also submitted an advisory opinion letter from President of 
, Inc., who "reviewed the accomplishments" of the petitioner. The letter states that the 
petitioner "is an extraordinary actress and entertainer at the top of her field of Spanish-language 
television serial acting.'' Mr. does not indicate that he was aware of the petitioner prior to 
the request for an advisory opinion. Mr. ' determination does not appear to be based on any 
prior knowledge of the petitioner or her work, but merely on the information given to him by the 
petitioner. 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Similarly, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the 
United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, 
n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. . Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).3 Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence. See also Visinscaia, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 
6571822, at *8 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give little weight to uncorroborated assertions 
from professionals in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not establish that "the display of her work in the field 
claimed under this criterion occurred at artistic exhibitions or at artistic showcases" and that "[i]n 
general, this criterion applies to the visual arts." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's 
conclusions were "arbitrary and capricious" and that the petitioner's "work has been displayed at the 
very highest level" due to the airing of her series "on major networks and TV channels 
internationally." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires 
"[e]vidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The 
petitioner is an actress. When she is performing in a television show, her work is not on display 
music in the same sense that a painter's or sculptor's work is on display in a gallery or museum. The 
petitioner is performing her work, she is not displaying her work. Contrary to the petitioner's 
assertions on appeal and in response to the director's request for evidence, the interpretation that 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal 
district court and is not an abuse of discretion. See Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 
*1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist 
do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). , The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to 
cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. As the petitioner is not a 
visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting 
to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory 
language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
showcases, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
As stated by the director in his decision, "the petitioner must establish: First, that the organization 
enjoys a distinguished reputation and second, the nature of the beneficiary's role within the entire 
organization or establishment." The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated how 
her performance in a television series "differentiated her from the other actors" or from 
the 
"organization's top executives" and how she "was responsible for the organization's overall success 
or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of' leading or critical role."' 
In the case of a leading role, the petitioner must demonstrate how the petitioner's role fits within the 
overall hierarchy of the organization or establishment. In the case of a critical role, the petitioner 
must have contributed to the success of the establishment or organization beyond merely. providing 
necessary services. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the organizations or establishments 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner asserts that she performed in a leading role for "at least 12 Spanish-language 
television series on major networks" and submitted letters from colleagues and articles which 
generally confirm that she played the protagonist in a number of television series, including the "lead 
role of ' in and the in The petitioner Qid not, however, 
provide evidence to establish that any of the shows have a distinguished reputation. While not a 
recent article and, thus, not determinative, the record contains an August 2000 article in 
stating that at least two of her shows did not enjoy high ratings. The record contains no 
independent ratings data documenting high ratings for any of her shows. Furthermore, the petitioner 
did not demonstrate how a television show, as opposed to a production company or television 
network for example, equates to an "organization" or "establishment," as required by the plain 
language of the regulation. Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) requires that evidence of 
experience "shall" consist of letters from employers. Therefore, letters written by anyone other than 
the petitioner's current and former employers can only supplement the required evidence for this 
criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted contracts between herself and a number of production companies. A 
contract, however, only establishes the parameters of the relationship, but does not demonstrate that 
the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. 
Networks and production companies routinely rely on individuals like the petitioner to appear in 
television shows and other projects. While the letters and articles indicate that the petitioner has 
played an important role in a number of soap operas, the record does not contain any evidence beyond 
the assertions of colleagues to establish that her role was leading or critical to either the production 
company or the network's success or standing. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others {n the field 
· The record reflects that the petitioner does not command an annual salary; rather the petitioner is 
compensated in a number of different ways, such as per episode. The petitioner submitted evidence 
documenting past earnings and letters from colleagues which generally state she is highly paid. 
The petitioner, however, must also submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those in her 
occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). The AAO 
notes that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is 
not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of . 
play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. 
This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson 
v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 
60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, 
the court's reasoning indicates thatUSCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
is reasonable. 
The director's RFE listed a variety of types of evidence which could establish the earnings of those 
in her occupation performing similar . work at the top level of the field. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that "statistical [salary] information for Colombian television serial actors appears not. to 
exist," but "does not provide any evidence to support such an assertion. The record contains a letter 
from · which states that the petitioner "has commanded a 
salary nearly 8 times th[ e] amount" paid to "other television stars ... , if they are in demand." While 
the record contains evidence regarding payments to the petitioner and letters from friends and 
colleagues which state that the actress is highly paid, the record does not contain any evidence, such 
as references to the salary of other highly paid actors in the media, regarding the pay scale of other 
"in demand" actors to support Ms. 's, or anyone else's claims. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or. unavailability of 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only 
where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the 
petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where the petitioner demonstrates that secondary 
evidence is unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In the instant petition, the petitioner did 
not submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that neither primary evidence, nor secondary . 
evidence, such as references to high salaries for actors in the media, exists and is available. 
Furthermore, the letters in the record are not affidavits as they were not sworn to or affirmed by the 
declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, having confirmed 
the declarant's identity, administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's Law Dictionary 
58 (9th Ed., West 2009). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths or affirmations, do they contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, 
that the signers, in signing the statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 
28 u.s.c. § 1746. . 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner asserts that she satisfies this criterion based upon letters which generally claim that the 
petitioner was responsible for the high ratings of television shows in which she appeared. According to 
an August 2000 article in however, the petitioner's two series prior to the series 
did not do well. The petitioner also states in her August 6, 2013 letter that she has "played 
leading and supporting roles in over 30 long-running television series." The letter from Ms. 
which lists the petitioner's "highest earnings" for eight of those series only indicates that the 
beneficiary was paid for a total of one year for seven of the series and six months for the other. 
Although the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that she has appeared in numerous television 
seri~s, the record does not contain any independent evidence, such as ratings data, which establishes 
that the series were highly rated and that the petitionerwas responsible for those ratings. USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The record also includes evidence of "an album being sold on iTunes and Amazon.com," but does 
not contain any evidence that the album is a commercial success. Furthermore, the petitioner listed 
her field of extraordinary ability as an actress, not a singer. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
D. Summary 
As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is 
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence 
under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination.4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
that she has satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established her eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. · 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; 
section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1· (2003); 
8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).