dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
Date: DEC 0 91013 Office: NE.SR.A.Sl<A SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Peti~ioner: 
Beneficiary: 
• Q;~, :pipartufelit {JtBom~d SecuritY 
U.S. Citizenship and Im01igration Servic.es 
Office of Admillistratlv.e Appeals · 
20 MilssachllsettSAve., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Im.migration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration aild :Nationality . Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A) • 
. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: . 
Enclosed please find the d~ision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
. \ 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law not establish ~gency 
poUcy through QOn-pr~cecJ~m d(!cisions. If you be}iev~ the AAO incorrectly applied current law or poiicy 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-290J3) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
~ttp:/J.'!ww.usds.gov/forms for t)Je l~test i_Qf«n·..:t~tion o~ fee, filing location, and other requirements; 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. ·Do not file a motion directly with the AAO, 
;;_;~ · 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
DI.SCUSSION: The Director, N~braska Setviee C¢nter, denied the employment-based iffirnigr~t ~ vi.s~ 
petition, which is now before the Administnitive Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
disroissed. · · · · 
the petitioner seeks classification as an ''alien of extraordinary ability;' iQ the arts, specifiCally a:s an 
actress, pursuant to -section 203(b)(l)(A) of the lm.migrnti()n and N~don~.ity Act (the Act), 8 .U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A): The. director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained natioA~ or 
· W.teD}a.tiop.al accl~im Q~~~sary to qualify for cllli$sification as an alien of extraordinary ability; 
•' . . ... ··J ' ' -. ' _' . ' " ' : - .- - - .• -
. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of exttaordiilaty ability by reqUiring through the . sta.~te 
fua.t ·me petitioner· demonstrate the alien's "s~ed 11ationll1 or international acclaim" and present 
.. ·".extensive docUirientation" of the a.lien's achievements. See section 203(b)(i)(A)(i) of th~ Act and 
8 ¢.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 aecl~ilil thro\lgh evidence ofa one-tinle achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such a.n a:ward, the regulation outJW.es 
ten categories ofspecific obj~ctive evide:p~. 8 C,f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
Submit qualifyiilg evidence under a:t leaSt three of the ten regulatory categories of evidenc:e to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erted iil concluding that sbe did not petfoqn in a 
leadmg o:r cri.tiCai role for organizations or establishmentS with a. distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner further asserts that she can establish eligibility for two additional regulatory criteria not 
previously claimed and submits new evidence relating to the additional criteria.. · 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of tbe Act states, in pertinent pa;rt, th~.t: 
(1) Priority work.e..rs. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified i.J:iuiJ.igta.rttS who are 
aliens described in: any Of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
, (A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is describ~d iil this subparagraph if.,.:~ 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability ·in tb.e scie.n¢es,. arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by su_stairted nat.iomll or 
international acclaim and whose achievementS have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(H) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work .iil the atea of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iiQ the alien's entry i11to the Unjte<J States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States . . 
(b)(6)
NON~PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
U.S. Citizenship and lrtiirtigration 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 ~sas as ~jens of extraordinl:ll)' ability. See H.R. 72'J 101~ 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. § W4.5(h)(2). . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's Sustained 
a~laim and the recognition of his or her achiev~tnents in th~ field, Such. acclcti,m must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international re~gnized 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 deilial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th CQ-. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the coUrt took issue With the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence subrnitt~d to me~t a given evidentiary cri.terion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F~R. I 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may h.av~ oosed legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have · 
been raised 1n a subsequent "final merits deteiJJlinatjon." /d. C).t 1121-22. · 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper \lnderstaiJ.ding of the regUlations. 
lilstead of parsing the significance of evidence as p~ 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 
f~led to submit suffident evidence, ·~e proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regUlatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO conch,1ded).'' /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. §204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two.,part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits deter:minatiort. Iii thiS matter, the AAO will review t.b:e evidence under 
. the plain 
language requirements ofeach criterion claimed. AS the petitioner did not submit qua..lifyiflg. 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper GOn.clusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior 0-1 Nonin.unigrant Visa 
WbUe U.S. Cit~ens4ip and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 
· noilimniigrartt visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approve» does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally irnposed novel S\lbSti:J.ntive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in ' the reguiations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) ahd 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT I)£CISION 
Page4 
standard. tJSClS denies many 1-140 immigrant petitions after approving prior nonirtu:nigrartt 
petitions. See; e.g., Q [)ata Consulting, Inc. v. ·INS, 293 F. Supp, 2d 25 (P.D;C. 2003); IKEA . US v. 
US Dept. o[Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. SQ.pp. 
1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time· reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions 
than i~l40 immigrant pe}itions, USCIS approves some nonimmigrant petitions in error. · Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not ptechide USCIS 
from denyipg ·em extension of the origi!!al visa l)aseci on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The language found in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) (outlining the requirements to be classified as a 
noniro.!nfgrant alien of extraordinary ability or achievement) describes a}i~ns who have a demonstrated 
record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture ot televiSion industry. The crif_eri~ for 
meeting the definition for the parallel immigrant classification under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xi), however, 
differ from those relating to the nonimmigrant Q .. J classification. 
) 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may bave been erroneous. See, · e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cortnil'r 1988). USCIS need not treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084,·1090 
(6th 
Cit. 1987), cett. denied, 485 u.s. 1008 (1988). 
Furtheffilore, the AAO's authori1:y over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center di.rector h_ad approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO woUld not be bound to follow. the 
contradictory decision of a serv~ce center. Loutsit:Zna Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cit. 2001), cett. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
B. Evidentia_ry Ctiteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awar(/s for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § · 204.5(h)(3)(i). .. 
The petitioner previously submitted evidence under this criterion. The director's decisi<m concluded 
that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and the petitioner does not identify arty factual or legal 
· error 
relating to this criterion on appeaL Conseq1.1ently, USClS concludes that the petitioner abandoned 
thiS claim. See Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F,3d 1226, 1228 n. Z (11th Cir. 2005), citing 
United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cit. 1998}; Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 ~t *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
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 
2 The pet.tioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory cat(!gories of evidence 
not disc::ussed irt this decision, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
ind«de the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The director detel11lined that the pe~itioner e~tablisbed this criterion. To satisfy this criterion, the 
petitioner submitted multiple articles from Italian magazines and other media, with accompanying 
translatioliS in English. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing 
foreign ·language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation 
which the translator has certified as complete a.nd accu.rate, and by the. trc:J.I_lsJator's certification that 
he or she is . competent to translate from the foreign langu~ge ' into English." 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the petitioner submitted translations that do not 
comport with the regulation. Instead, the translations are accompanied by a single blanket 
certification that does not identify the specific translations certified. Because these translations do 
not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), t.qey have no probative value. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory requirements and the AAO.witbdraws the 
director's finding With regard to this criterion. 
' Evidence of the alien's partiCipation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work _of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner did not submit evidence in support of this criterion with her Fotrn I-140 ot in response to 
the director's Request for Evidence (RFE). Rather, the petitioner ~ulul)its new evidence relating to this 
criterion fot the first time on appeal. The director, in the RFE, specifically noted that the petitioner did 
· not submit evidence under this· criterion and informed the petitioner that she could 
choose to submit 
evidence in response to satisfy the 
request. The purpose of the RFE is to el,iqt further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been. established, as of the time the petition is 
filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). The 
petitioner in ·bet letter responding to the director's request stated the following: "in the USCIS RfE 
letter, rail the additional evidence requested (except for the Award WS ANGElES ITAUAN FILM 
FESTIVAL for which I am subnritting new info/magazitle ), I without a doubt already submitted in the 
initial I.,l40 application in detail and with thorough explanation for each su.bjeet/' 
As in the present matter, where a petitioner was on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and had art 
opporf:tln.ity to re$pond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeaJ. See Mattet of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec, 533 
(BIA 1988). The response to the director's RFE was the petitioner's opportUnity to document her 
participation as a judge of the work of others. See id. Under the circumstMCeS, the MO need not, and 
does not, consider the sufficiency of the new evidence submitted on appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
£vidence of , the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, of business .. related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The p~tition_er ~-ddr~sses this· criterion for the ftist time on appeal, referencing her fundraising work. 
without explaining its impact on her field of acting. As noted ~bove in the discussion of the previous 
criterion, the director noted in the RFE that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence for this 
criterion and she declined to submit eviden~ in response to the RFE via her response letter. Again, 
where a petitioner was on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and h~d ap opportunity to respond to 
tl\~t defiCiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first tinie on appeaL See Matter of 
Sotklno, 19 I&N at 764; Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N at 533. The response to the director's RFE 
provided thr petitioner an opportunity to document evidence of original artistic coP.tributions of major 
signifjcap.ce ip the _field. See id. Under the circumstanees, the AAO need not, and does not, consider 
the sufficiency of the new evidence submitted on appe~ . · 
Evidence th_at the alien haS performed in a leading or critical tole for organi~ations or 
establishments that have a distitfguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In general, - ~ lead_ing role is evidenced from the role itself, its duties, and .how it fits within the 
hierarchy of the organization or establishment. A critical role is one in which the petitioner 
positively impacted the success or standing of the organization or establishment. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the plain langu.~ge :req~irements of this 
criterion. The director observed th~t while the petitioner submitted various doCUillentation in support of 
this criterion, including printouts from the internet, articles, and letters of support as evidence of the 
petitioner's performance of various leading or critical roles in television, film, and the~ter, such a level 
of involvement does not constitute a leading or critical role in an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. lfl addition, the director determined that an ~cting role played in a television 
show, ·movie, or tbeatrica.l endeavor would generally not qualify as a leading or critidil rol(~ apd noted 
that the previously issued RFE suggested ·that the petitioner submit evidenCe that would assist in 
_ establishing that she performed a leading or critical role for organizations or est~blishments. 
On appeal, the petition~r ~sert:s that the record contains substantial and detailed evidence for nine 
different large and reputable organizations in It~y where she played an important role as a starring 
actress and that the director only discussed the sufficiency of evidence relating to one of the nine 
organ~atiow;. _As an ini~ial matter, the record indicates, and the petitioner only identities eight 
organizations for which she p_erformed in various leading and critical roles as either a leading actress or 
a spokesperson. 
In the initial application, tbe petitioner largely asserted that she perfoililed in a leading role by 
performing as a leading actress in various acting projects, such as plays; movies.; and television shows. 
·The petitioner a.J.so identified ~ commercial for a beauty line which resulted in successful 
s~es on a retail Satellite television platform. On appe~, the petitioner for the first time aSsertS that her 
leading role for various individual acting projects amounts to a leading or crit_i~ role for the 
corresponding television networks, the~ters, musical theater company, online television network, and 
cosmetic care company. As stated by the director, the individual actiitg projects (such as a movie or a 
,j 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
thea_tet production) are not the equivalents of organiZations or establishments. While on appeal the 
petitioner now characterizes her leading involvement in individual acting projects aS work that impacted 
the· entire producing network or theater, the record does not support such a claim. For each claimed 
leading role, the petitioner submitted a packet of evidence that generally included documentation of _her 
involvement, magazine articles, web references, and a l~tter or two ftom an individual who was 
involved in the project. However, the sqpport letters di$CUss the petiti9ner's influence on individual 
projects . and do not provide support to the· claim that the petitioner's role was leading or critic;;ll to the 
organiZation or the est~blishment as a whole. i 
For example producer for the independent film production compail) 
whichproduced the film states: ''The main character in the movie is been [sic] played 
by [tbe petitioner], a versatile artist with skills in martial arts, ballet, modem d_CUice and smging.- [The 
petitioner] brings with her an enormous range of skills and waS found.irtlental [sic) for the success of the 
movie,'' Mr. while complinwntary of the petitioner's contributions to a specific film, does not 
state· that she had any impact to the organization at large, the production company. 
The oruy claimed leadiP.g role that was not in CQnpection with (l specific acting project was the work the 
petitioner performed as a Spokesperson for In the appeal brief, the petitjoper claims that 
is an internationally known cosmetic care company. However, there is no evidence in the 
record that substantiates b.er claims in this regard. Going on record wl_thout supporting evidence is 
insufficient. MatterofSoffici, 22 I&N Q~c. 158, 165 (Coniiil'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crq,ft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). While thepetitioner submitteddocinfielltation 
~ .. 
on Snell System that describes the system as being revolutionary, USClS need not rely on the self-
. promotional material of the company. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 
2007) a.tf'd Z009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009). Based on the evidence of record, it is not cleat if r 
is one line of beauty products from an tinnamed company or is the name of a co~metic care 
company, as the petitioner asserts. Regardless, the record does not contain: evidence that is 
an organization or an establishment with a distinguished reputatipn_. Even if the company does enjoy a 
diStinguished reputation, the petitioner has not documented the impact of her role for tbat compapy, 
such as documentation of increased sales. 
director for the Italian television serie! in whjch the petitioner 
played a lead acting role, writes: "[The petitioner] played the co.,st_ar role of this 
character is full of colors and we needed a. versatile talent and [the petitioner'S] portrayal of the 
served to keep. viewers in suspense, roaldng the series ;;lll the more interesting and popular. It 
has been a great choice f0t my team [to] have her in the [television] series.'' Mr; discusses the · 
petitioner's influence in the particular series. The petitioner oil appeal characterizes her work in 
as having a leading or critical role for and for 
the media group that owns The supporting documentation that the petitioner 
~ubmitted regarding her work on the show does · not indicate that her role im acted the success of the 
show at a level indicative of her critical role for For exam le, the 
-record lacks evidence that ; viewership increased with the introduction of 
However, even assuming that the submitted evidence is sufficient to establish that the 
petitioner, through the success of the series performed a critical role for 
or, the record supports the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
has not established eligibility under this criterion because she has not submitted evidence demonstrating 
her perfonn~ce in a leading or yritical role for orga,niz;:J,tion_s or establi~hment~ (in the plural) that have 
a distinguished r~putation, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 
-Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the crite~ia at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.f.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require 
service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include 
the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(K)(3)(ii)(B) that 
evidence of experience must be in the form of"letter(s)." Thus, t.he plural in the remaining regulatory 
criteria has meaning. In a different context, -federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used-in a regulation.3 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements under · 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vHl). 
Evif!.ence that the alien has commanded a high salary ot other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in re/a.tion to others in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The director determined that the petitioner established this criterion. To satisfy this criterion, the 
petitioner submitted into evidence webpage pri.pJm,It_s from a website that purportedly establishes the 
median actor's salary in Italy. The petitioner also submitted multiple contrl3,cts jn ltaliall for shows or 
projects that filmed-in 2009, with accompanying translations. From 2009, the petitioner submitted a 
receipt from TV showing a paYillent, along with a,Ji accmnpl3,Ilying translation. The 
-petitioner also submitted one bank statement _from '2JYJ7 showing a one-time deposit, wit.h. an 
accompan}'Wg tra_pslation. 
As noted in the earlier discussion Of the criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xiii), the reg1,1latlon l3,t 
· 8 C.F.R. § 103.Z(b)(3) outlines the requirements for translations of foreign language documep.ts that 
ate submitted to USCIS as evidence. While not addressed by the director in his decision, the 
petitioner submitted translations that do not comport with the regulation. Instead, the transla,tjops ~Je 
accmnpa11ied by a. single blanket certification that does not identify any spe.cifie document. Be_cause 
these translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(1:J)(3),they have no probative value. 
Moreover; even if the petitioner had met the translation requirements, the evidence sUbmitted under 
this criterion still cou.ld not satisfy the plain language requirements because the petitioner haS. not 
submitted any'supporting documentation that shows the reliability of tbe d~;itCJ. no111 the online source 
that allegedly establishes the median salary of Italian actors. The submitted documenta:tion rel;:J,ting 
to the website does not Include even the most basic information, such as the internet address or URL 
of the Site. Moreover, even if the petitioner provided addition;:J,l evidence establishing the reliability 
of the inforillation on the website, earning above the median income level is insufficient to sat_is_fY 
the reql!jrements of the regulation. At issue is how the petitioner's income compares with high 
3 See Maram]iiya v; USCIS; Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at U (D.C.C:;ir. Ma.rc;h26, 2008); Snapnaines.com 
Inc. v. Chertojf, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
· regul~:J.tory requirement for "a" bachelor's degre~ or "a" foreign ~quivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5{1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination Of academic credentials). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENt DECISION 
Page9 
!:i::t.laries -or significantly high other remuneration. The petitioner did not .!:iUbmit evidence of high 
income ot significantly hi~ other remuneration for actors in Italy. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory requirements a.nd the MO withdraws the 
director's finding \vith regard to this criterion. 
B. SU111mary 
Th_e ~tition_er has fa_il~d to submit sufficient retevMt, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three t}'pes of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The docwnen(ation Sl.lbmitted in, support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or internation~ acclaim a.nd i,s one of tJ?.e small percentag~ 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categori~s, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a fillal merits detet111ination 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 reco~d in, the tield of e?Cpertise.'' 8 C.P.R. 
§.§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes tba_t the 
evjdenGe is not iJ:idicative of a leveLof 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 has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of eviden~. /d. at 1122. The petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuantto section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appe·at-·wm be dismissed for the above stated re8$0l1S, with each considered as an independent 
-and atterilate 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 dismiss~d. 
4 TbcAAQ III.C:lintains de povo ~eview of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisQictioQ to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) Qf the Act; DHS Delega_tion Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 1-."'&-N. Dec. 458, 460 (UIA 
1987) (holding thlit legacy INS, now ,USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).