dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-G-I-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actress, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner's evidence did not establish that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and did not satisfy at least three 
of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she has received a one-time achievement and meets at least 
three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of D-G-1-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirement. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirement, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, shows 
sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if 
fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the 
principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner has been training in acting since at least 2008] and holds an 
Advanced Diploma of Arts in acting from the I I for the Arts inl The evidence 
indicates that between 2011 and the date when the instant petition was filed on October 23, 2017, the 
Petitioner has worked as an actress in film, television and stage productions. 1 
The Petitioner's acting credits in film and TV include the following: 
• Kate in the short film I 1(2011) '";::::::===::::::::..:::.. 
• Din the short filml 1(2012) 
• Kristi in the feature-length film t20l3) ~----;::::::=======:-' 
• Robin in eight episodes of the TV series (2013) 
• Moviegoer in the feature-length fil (2016)(post-production) 
• Emma in the feature-lengt~h~f~il=_-....ll.!2:.!0~15) 
• Elizabeth in the short fil,.-L-----,-,---,-----'(2015) (post-production) 
• Lead role in the short filml K2015) 
• Shanel lin the TV mini-s;:..:e~n:..::·e..:::!s=======,-~----',2016)(post-production) 
• Stacey in the feature-length filml,___ ____ __.1(2016) 
1 The Petitioner was previously ap2roved for a nonimmigrant O-lB visa, with from August 
19, 2013 to April 10, 2016, and wittj I from June 13, 2016._t_o -Ja-n-ua-ry-15-,-2-01-9-. _ _. 
2 
Matter of D-G-1-
• Rehab Center Director in the feature-length film J ~2016) 
• Catherine in the feature-len th filmj ~ ------~I (2017) 
• Laila in the short film 201 7 
• Ava in the feature-length film 2017) ~___.!====:::.:...,_ _ _.;::,_ ____ ~ 
• The Girl in the short fil .___ _________ __,(2018) 
The evidence submitted further confirms the following theater roles: 
• Cast memb,.....e_r_in~~-----~with the.__ _____ ~ Ensemble at th~~----~ 
Theatre in lifornia (2013) 
• Cast member in at the Hollywood Fringe Festival (2014) 
• Member of the I !comedy troupe at the l I Theatre in ~I --~I (2016) 
The Petitioner seeks to continue her work in the field of acting in the United States. 
A. One-time Achievement 
The Petitioner asserts that her receipt of the 20081 I Rising Star award and her "impressive 
line-up of film festival honors" are evidence that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We agree with the Director that the evidence does not establish 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a onetime 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as 
major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 1 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash 
prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top 
awards. 
The Petitioner documented her receipt of the 20081 I Rising Star award with a photo of a 
crystal trophy and an award certificate. On appeal, the Petitioner urges that the documentation 
submitted about the award shows that it satisfies this criterion. The record contains rneral information 
about the award in the form of a press release from its co-sponsorsJ a law firm, and the 
I !Academy for the Visual and Performing Arts. According to this item, the award is "one of 
I ~ s most coveted prizes for those beginning to make their way in the performing arts" 
and is awarded to "four outstanding young women who are all selected by senior staff from the 
3 
Matter of D-G-1-
'-----.---'I Academy partner schools they represent." Each award recipient receives "a $1,000 cash 
award to help her make the leap into a professional career." The record reflects that the Petitioner 
received the award as a student actor at the .__ _____ _.for the Arts. The other award recipients 
were students of cinematography, dance, and music. 
It appears that competition for the I IRising Star award was by definition not open to all 
performing artists[ but to a very restricted segment of performing artists- students of the partner schools 
of thel Academy for the Visual and Performing Arts. The Petitioner, therefore, has not 
shown that this award was open to established professionals already working in the field rather than 
limited to those students. In addition, the petitioner did not provide general information about the 
competition (such as the eligibility criteria, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who 
earned some type ofrecognition). Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the recipients of the 
preceding honors were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with a major, 
internationally recognized award. The Petitioner did not present evidence, for example, establishing 
that the competition is widely reported by international media, is recognized by the general public, or 
gamers attention comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Academy Award 
winners. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her receipt of the 20081 I 
Rising Star award meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
The Petitioner also asserts that she has received "film festival honors" that satisfy this criterion. The 
evidence submitted indicates that the Petitioner was a quarterfinalist in the 2013 L I 
I !Competition for her role as Robin inl I The Petitioner has not established 
that being a quarterfinalist equates to receiving an award at that competition. 
Further, information from indicates that the short film I I received the 
Online award from the,__--.---------,.------' at the 2017 I I Festival, ~ 
documentation shows that the film as the winner of several awards at the 2018 L___J 
I I Film Festival (formerly the,___----,,-____ ..... Film Festival). That evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner was the recipient of any of the awards at those festivals. Further, the 
.__ ________ _.Film Festival awards were in 2018, after the date the petition was filed on 
October 23, 2017. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). Regardless, we note that the record does not document that an award from thd I 
Festival or the.__ _______ __.Film Festival qualifies as a major, internationally recognized 
award. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the ten criteria. 
4 
Matter of D-G-1-
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she satisfies at least three of those alternate regulatory criteria. 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that she has not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements. 2 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements a petitioner must satisfy. The clear regulatory 
language requires that the prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain 
language of the regulation also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is 
one for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an 
event or to a group. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. The Director determined that the petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims she satisfies this criterion based upon her receipt of one actual award, and several 
instances where films in which she acted received awards or were screened at film festivals. 3 The 
award the Petitioner received is the previously discussed 2008 I I Rising Star award. As 
noted above, the evidence submitted does not sufficiently establish that the I l Rising Star 
award is a major, internationally recognized award. In addition, this evidence does not demonstrate 
that the award is a nationally or internationally recognized award in the Petitioner's field. As discussed 
previously, based on the limited information provided in the above-referenced pres release the award 
was not open to all performing artists, but to students of the partner schools of the !Academy 
for the Visual and Performing Arts. The Petitioner, therefore, has not shown that this award was open 
to established professionals already working in the field rather than limited to those students. 
In addition, the indication in the press release that the award is "one ofl Is most coveted 
prizes" reflects local or regional, rather than national or international recognition. Further, the record 
contains insufficient evidence establishing the significance and magnitude of the preceding 
competition and the extent to which the winners are recognized beyond the issuing body. The record 
does not contain any other evidence related to the award, such as the eligibility criteria, the number of 
entrants, or evidence showing that the recipients of the award were announced in major media or in 
some other manner consistent with a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
3 ence indicates thatl I was screened at the I I International Film Festival 2Q..1.2.0 
was screened at the I 12014, I I was screened at thel I Film Festival, andl______J 
as screened in 2016 at thPI IFilm Fest Los Angeles and the! !Film Festival. We note that 
although the record also indicates that I I was shown at the I I Film Festival 
Paris and the I I Short Film Festival, those screenings were i!1 2018 after the date the petition was filed on 
October 23, 2017. As previously mentioned the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
5 
Matter of D-G-1-
Finally, as mentioned, although information from I I indicates that the short film 
........,_ ___ !received the Online award from thel I at the 20171 I Festival 
the record does not document that the Petitioner was the recipient of the award, or demonstrate that 
the award is a nationally or internationally recognized award in the Petitioner's field. While it is 
notable that some of the films in which the Petitioner acted were presented at various film festivals, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating that these screenings are evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements of this criterion as prizes or awards. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the requirements of this 
criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that satisfies this criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that she meets this criterion based u on the submitted article about her from 
Bulgaria ON AIR titled'........,_ _____________________ ~ The article 
briefly reviews her educational background, states she has appeared in a horror film and "romantic 
comedies, series and short films," and relates her desire to win an Oscar. However, the submitted 
article does not identify the author of the material, as required by the regulations. Further, the 
Petitioner did not provide documentation demonstrating that the publication is considered a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Consequently, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies 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). 
This criterion requires not only evidence of invitations to serve as a judge, but also that the petitioner 
actually participated as a judge. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she 'judged the work of 
others as a I I Television Nominating Committee member." The record does not 
substantiate this claim. The Petitioner provided copies of emails dated 2016 addressed to "Members 
of thd I Nominating Committee," inviting them to attend screenings of several TV series, 
and a Final Voting Reminder for members of that committee. However, as noted by the Director, the 
above-referenced emails do not identify the Petitioner as an intended recipient. In addition, while the 
Petitioner's~membership card contained in the record is evidence in support of her qualifications 
to judge, the regulation requires a showing of actual participation as a judge. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
6 
Matter of D-G-1-
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. In order to 
satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has she made original contributions but 
that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that her 
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. The Petitioner 
maintains that "in each of her artistic works" she has made an "essential" and "original artistic 
contribution" to the field. In support, she references her receipt of the previously discussed 2008 
I I Rising Star award, claimed "film festival honors," and the article published about her 
in Bulgaria On Air. 
Regarding thel I Rising Star award, once again the press release about the award does not 
establish its scope and significance in the field of acting. Such evidence could include information 
regarding the number of entries in the Petitioner's category in the year she won, evidence of any 
publicity she received as a result of winning the prize, or other evidence that establishes that the winner 
of this event receives "significant recognition," beyond the crystal trophy, award certificate, and cash 
award she received. If the results of the event were not publicized beyond the award's sponsors and 
partner schools, we cannot find that this award has impacted or influenced the field in a significant 
manner or otherwise equates to a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition, as preyiorly discussed, although information froml I indicates that the 
short film I received the Online award from the I I at the 201 7 
I !Festival the record does not document that the Petitioner was the recipient of the award. 
Even if there was sufficient documentary evidence submitted reflecting the Petitioner's receipt of an 
award at the I IF es ti val, the Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to show how her 
purported film festival award has impacted or influenced the field in a significant manner. 
The Petitioner further claims her eligibility for this criterion based on the aforementioned article 
published about her in Bulgaria On Air. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the information 
related about her in this article demonstrates an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
widely applied throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the _field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion. We 
disagree and find that the record supports the Petitioner's claim that she meets this criterion. The 
record reflects that the Petitioner performed as an actress in theatrical settings. Therefore, the 
Petitioner established that she fulfills this criterion. 
7 
Matter of D-G-1-
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she has "performed in major roles in film, and television and 
theatre." 4 The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the relative importance of the Petitioner's 
role for distinguished organizations. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a 
critical role is one in which the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. As noted by the Director, the fact that the Petitioner may have played 
a leading role in several of the above-mentioned film, theater, and TV productions is not sufficient to 
satisfy this criterion's requirements. The Petitioner did not demonstrate how such productions equate 
to an organization. In addition, the record does not provide background information or documentation 
regarding the production companies for the majority of those productions, to establish the reP.utation of 
those organizations. While the record contains some background information on I J 
Entertainment, indicating it is the production company forl I and .... I ____ __.r 
I I that evidence does not establish that it is an organization with a distinguished reputation in the 
field. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she has earned a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 5 In 
support of this criterion, the Petitioner presented a list of four projects, three in 2012 and one in 2018, 
indicating that the hourly wage she earned for each job ranged between $300 and $400, and a copy of 
a cashed check dated September 1, 2018 paid to her in the amount of $1,250 for a "Film Short." She 
further provided comparative wage data, specifically a screenshot from www.bls.gov regarding 2017 
Occupational Employment and Wages, reflecting that the 90th percentile of actors earned an hourly 
wage of $89.08. On appeal, the Petitioner claims she meet this criterion because she "commanded 
$200/hour." 
First, we note that the check dated 2018 pertains to wages the Petitioner earned after the date when 
the petition was filed on October 23, 2017. As discussed previously, the Petitioner must establish that 
all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A petition may not be approved if the 
petitioner was not qualified as of the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In addition, regarding the 
Petitioner's assertion that in 2012 she earned between $300 and $400 per hour, or her claim on appeal 
4 The Petitioner also asseits on appeal that she has provided evidence of her performance in advertising campaigns, but the 
record does not contain such evidence. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 11 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005- l .pdf. 
8 
Matter of D-G-1-
that she "commanded $200/hour," the record does not substantiate that claim. The Petitioner has not 
provided evidence showing the salary or remuneration she has received as an actress from any source. 
She has not provided reliable evidence such as her tax returns reflecting her total earnings or the copies 
of the paychecks she received as a result of her previous acting assignments. Based on the forgoing, the 
Petitioner has not established that her past earnings qualify as a high salary relative to similarly 
employed individuals. 
C. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner is not eligible because she 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that 
meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not 
fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude that it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her accomplishments is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons. 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 ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofD-G-1-, ID# 4594193 (AAO Nov. 5, 2019) 
9